Draft of January 7,1999

DRAFT

RESTORATION PLAN AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

THE TENYO MARU OIL SPILL

Prepared bY ..

The Tepzyo Maw Oil Spill Natural Resource Trustees

Makah Indian Ttibe

State of Washington

Department of Ecology (WDOE)

Department of Fish and Wildlife (KDFW)

Department bf Natural Resources (DNR)

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Aclrministration

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

National Park Service (NPS)

Bureau of Indian Aflairs (BIA)

PuBLIC REV ‘IEW DRA

7,1999

Draft of January 7,1999

Executive Summary

On July 22, 1991 the Japanese fishing vessel Tenyo Mizru and Chinese freighter Tuo Hai

collided within Canadian Territorial waters approximately 20 miles northwest of Cape Flattery.

The Tenyo Maru , which was reportedly carrying 354,800 gallons of intermediate fuel oil,

97,800 gallons of diesel fuel, and 22,500 gallons of fish oil, sank at collision. It initially leaked

a large amount of oil and undetermined amounts were reported leaking for more than a month

after the collision. Beaches were fouled with oil from Vancouver Island, British Columbia to

northern Oregon. While impacts were scattered along the entire Washington State shoreline and

the northern beaches of Oregon, the heaviest oiling occurred along the Makah Indian

Reservation and the Olympic National Park shoreline. The Natural Resource Trustees estimated

that 3,740- 19,559 common murres (Uris adge) and 16 l-273 (7-l 1% of the total outer coast

population) federally threatened marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) were killed, in

addition to substantial numbers of rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca moncerata), tufted puffin

(Fratercula cirrhata), Cassin’s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) and pigeon guillemot

(Cepphus columba). Substantial amounts of oil were observed in many of the giant kelp

(Mcrocystis) and bull kelp (Nereocystis) dominated kelp beds from Cape Alava north to

Tatoosh Island and from Tatoosh Island east to Waadah Island. Laboratory studies indicate that

oil from the Tenyo Maru may have injured the kelp. (Tenyo Maru Trustees 1993, Battelle

Marine Sciences Laboratory 1992)

Claims for natural resource damages were settled by consent decree under the Oil Pollution Act

of 1990 (OPA), 33 U. S.C. 5 2701 et seq.. Under the consent decree the defendants agreed to

pay approximately $5.2 million to restore, rehabilitate, replace or acquire the equivalent of

natural resources injured by the oil discharge. This Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental

Assessment (DRP/EA) is presented to the public by the Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees)

responsible for restoration implementation under the consent decree. The DRP/EA describes the

affected environment and illustrates potential restoration alternatives and their environmental

consequences. The Trustees have selected an integrative restoration approach as their preferred

alternative to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of natural resources injured

in the Tenyo ikkzru oil spill.

The Trustees present this DRP/EA to the public and encourage written comments from

interested citizens, organizations and governments. The final RP/EA will be prepared and

released to the public following an evaluation of all comments received from this draft Plan.
Draft of January 7,1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION l-l

1.1 Purpose And Need For Restoration l-l

1.2 Incident Background l-l

1.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources and Natural Resource Injury l-3

1.4 Public Involvement and Plan Implementation l-6

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

OF CONCERN 2-l

2.1 Affected Environment 2-l

2.1.1 Land Ownership 2-1

2.1.2 Species in the Affected Environment 2-3

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES, PROPOSED PROJECTS,

A.ND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-l

3.1 Development of Restoration Alternatives 3-l

3.2 Proposed Alternatives and Potential Projects 3-3

3.2.1 Alternative A: No-Action/Natural Recovery 3-3

3.2.2 Alternative B: Population-Focused Restoration 3-4

3.2.2.1 Restoration of Common Murre Colonies in Copalis

National Wildlife Refuge, Washington 3-4

3.2.2.2 Oiled Wildlife Rehabilitation Center 3-7

3.2.2.3 Public Education Signs and Brochures 3-9

3.2.2.4 Seabird By-Catch Reduction in Coastal Net Fisheries 3- 10

3.2.3 Alternative C: Habitat-Focused Restoration 3-13

3.2.3.1 Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River

Silt Reduction 3-13

3.2.4 Alternative D: An Integrative Restoration Approach 3-16

4.0 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 4-l

4.1 Proposed Project Schedules and Estimated Budgets 4-3

ii
Draft of January 7,1999

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 5-l

6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 6-l

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1- 1. Approximate Area Impacted by Tenyo lMaru Oil Spill l-2

LIST OF TABLES

Table I- 1. Bird Species with Mortalities Associated with the Tenyo Miaru

Oil Spill l-4

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Summary of Public Comments to Scoping Document

APPENDIX B: Coordination With Other Programs, Plans, and Regulatory

Authorities.
Draft of January 7,1999

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs

CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR- Code of Federal Regulations

DOC - Department of Commerce

DOI - Department of the Interior

DOM - dissolved organic matter

DRP - draft Restoration Plan

EA - Environmental Assessment

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

ESA - Endangered Species Act

FAA - Federal Aviation Administration

FWS- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

MOA - Memorandum of Agreement

MRI - magnetic resonance imaging

NPS - National Park Service

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRDA - Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NWR - National Wildlife Refuge

OCNMS - Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

ONP - Olympic National Park

OPA- Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Plan - Restoration Plan

RFP - Request for Proposals

RP - Restoration Plan

Sanctuary - Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

SEPA - Washington State Environmental Policy Act

SOAL - State owned aquatic lands

WAC - Washington Administrative Code

WDFW - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDNR - Washington Department of Natural Resources

WDOE- Washington State Department of Ecology

WSP - Washington State Parks

UNESCO - United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

YOY - young of year

iv
Draft of January 7,1999

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

The purpose of this Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (DRPLEA) is to

design, coordinate, and implement projects that restore, rehabilitate, replace and/or acquire the

equivalent of natural resources injured from the discharge of oil by the Tenyo lMaru on July 22,

199 1. This document has been prepared on behalf of the public by the Natural Resource

Trustees (Trustees) responsible for restoration implementation under a consent decree. The

DRPEA describes the affected environment and illustrates potential restoration alternatives and

their environmental consequences. This DRP/EA is being developed in accordance with the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2706(b), the National Environmental Policy Act

@EPA), 42 USC 4321-4370d, and its implementing regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and

the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

1.2 Incident Background

On July 22, 1991, the Japanese fishing vessel Tenyo Mum and Chinese freighter Tuo Hai

collided within Canadian Territorial waters in heavy fog approximately 20 miles northwest of

Cape Flattery. The Tenyo M&-u sank at the point of collision in 90 fathoms of water. It was

reportedly carrying 354,800 gallons of intermediate fuel oil, 97,800 gallons of diesel fuel, and

22,500 gallons of fish oil. (Tenyo Mar-u Oil Spill Trustees 1993)

The vessel initially leaked a large amount of oil. For more than a month after the collision, an

undetermined quantity of oil leaked from the sunken vessel, and fouled beaches from Vancouver

Island, British Columbia to northern Oregon (Fig. l-l). The heaviest oiling occurred along the

Makah Indian Reservation and the Olympic National Park shoreline. Impacts were scattered

along the entire Washington State shoreline and the northern beaches of Oregon.

In December 1994, the Trustees and defendants for the 1991 Tenyo Maru oil spill entered into a

consent decree’ . Under the consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay to a federal court-held

restoration fund approximately $5.2 million to restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the

1 United States et al. v. Maruha Corporation et al, Civil No. C94-1537 (W-D. Wash.,

Dec. 23, 1994).

l-l
Draft of January 7,1999
Draft of January 7,1999

equivalent of natural resources injured as a result of the spill.

Restoration funds were recovered under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 USC sec. 270 1 et

seq.) and the State’s Water Pollution Control Act (90.4856 RCW). Guidance applicable to

restoration, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources and services is contained in 15

CFR Part 990, Department of Commerce, and 43 CFR Subtitle A, Part 11 of the Department of

Interior (DOI) natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) regulations. According to the

consent decree, a restoration plan must be adopted and a mechanism for its implementation must

be in place before expenditure of funds. A Trustee Committee was formed by a Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA), consisting of the Makah Indian Tribe, the State of Washington (Dept. of

Ecology, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and Dept. of Natural Resources), the Department of

Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration @VOAA]) and, the Department

of the Interior (u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian

Affairs). The objective for the Terry0 Maru Trustee Committee is to plan and design, coordinate

and implement projects that restore, rehabilitate, replace and/or acquire the equivalent of natural

resources injured by the Tertyo lMaru oil spill.

1.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources and Natural Resource Injury

Spill-related natural resource injuries were documented primarily for marine birds, and

secondarily for kelp (Macrocystis and Nereocystis) (Tenyo Maru Oil Spill Trustees 1993). Of

the 740 oiled birds rescued alive, 97 (13%) survived rehabilitation and were released. Their

ultimate fate is unknown. A total of 4,300 bird carcasses was recovered during search and

rescue efforts (Table l-l). However, this number is a minimum estimate for total seabird

mortality because many carcasses may have sunk, been scavenged, or were not found by rescue

workers. Thirty bird species were identified from birds recovered from the spill.

Approximately 93% of the total number of birds recovered were from species known commonly

to breed in Washington State (15 species). However, not all of these birds necessarily were

Washington breeders or were hatched in Washington. For example, Warheit (1996) estimated

that between 39% and 58% of the adult common murres (Uris aalge) killed by the spill in

Washington were from Washington, and the remaining adult common murres were from

Oregon.

Models have been developed to extrapolate total seabird mortality from carcass counts. These

models use the at-sea abundance and distribution of the seabirds; spill trajectories; and

probabilities that birds will become oiled, that a particular carcass will be scavenged after

reaching shore, and that an unscavenged carcass will be found by rescue workers (see Page et al.

1990, Ford et al. 1996). Because only at-sea seabird distribution information and spill trajectory

l-3
Draft of January 7,1999

Table l-l. Bird species with mortalities associated with the Tenyo Maru oil spill.

# Oiled Birds Breeding Population Estimates

Species 1 Retrieved Statewide 1 Outer coast Source’

Common Loon I rare

Red-throated Loon 1

Western Grebe 2 rare

Black-footed Albatross 11

Northern Fulmar 67

Sooty Shearwater 49

Short-tailed Shearwater 5

Unidentified Shearwater 1

Fork-tailed Storm-petrel 1 3,878 3,878 (a)

Leach’s Storm-petrel 1 35,700 35,700 (a)

Unidentified Storm-petrel I

Double-crested Cormorant 5 1 6,472* W

Brandt’s Cormorant IO 700 700 W

Pelagic Cormorant 18 6,134 4,800 W

Unidentified Cormorant 12

Surf Scoter IO

White-winged Scoter 41

BuMehead 1 rare

Black Turnstone 1

Mew Gull 4

California Gull a7 >500

Western/GI.-winged Gull 9 1 36,923 36,923 (a)

Unidentified Gull 39

Caspian Tern 25 7,918 ? (a) , Arctic Tern 1 rare

Common Murre 3,157 1 3,6003 1 3,6003 (e) (0 .

Pigeon Guillemot 33 4,270 1 4,270 (a)

Marbled Murrelet 45 5,000 2,4004 (c) (d) , Cassin’s Au klet 116 45,3755 45, 3755 W

Rhinoceros Au klet 281 55,662 27,872 (b)

Homed Puffin I

Tufted Puffin 127 561 25 5,5825 W

Crow spp. 1 common common

,Unidentified bird 54

Total 4,300

’ Source for population estimates: (a) Speich & Wahl(l989); (b) Ulrich Wilson, per-s. comm (1996); (c) Speich et al. (1992); (d) Speich

& Wahl(l995); (e) Wilson (1995); (I) Parrish (1996a)

2 Statewide estimate for marine population

3 Population st e imate based on Wilson (1995) attendance data for murres nesting within FWS refuges (1995 median = 5,230) & Parrish

(1996a) attendance data for murres nesting on Tatoosh Island in 1995 (3,270). Attendance total was multiplied by 1.6 to estimate

breeding population.

4 Speich et al (1992) estimated total population (adults, subadults, and juveniles) for outer coast

5 Population estimates based, in part, on burrow counts and percent occupancy for those burrows on Carroll and Alexander Islands, and

Cake Rock. Data collected in 1980’s.

l-4
The Trustees identified and documented 3,157 common murres killed by the oil spill, which is a

minimum estimate of actual mortality. The median attendance at common murre breeding

colonies in Washington in 1991, 1995, 1996, and 1997 was roughly 7,700; 8,500; 6,738; 3,810

birds, respectively (Wilson 1995, Parrish 1996a, Wilson 1997). Therefore, a potentially sizable

proportion of the total Washington state common murre population (includes breeding and

nonbreeding adult, sub-adult, and juvenile birds) may have been killed by the Tenyo kkzru oil

spill.

The federally threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) population in

Washington was also impacted by the TenyoMaru spill. Forty-five known murrelet mortalities

were observed and documented from the spill. Approximately 70% of birds of known age were

juveniles, and 62% of known sex were females (Warheit 1996). As with common murres, this

spill may have affected a sizable proportion of marbled murrelets nesting in Washington.

Similar to many other oil spills in the north temperate to subarctic waters the Alcidae (murres,

puffins, and their allies) comprised the highest percentage of known mortality (87%) from the

TenyoMku oil spill. Besides common murres and marbled murrelets, substantial numbers of

rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca moncerata), tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata), Cassin’s Auklet

(Ptychoramphus aleuticus) and pigeon guillemots (Cepphus columba) carcasses were recovered

from the spill, with estimated total mortality for these species possibly ranging into several

hundred individual birds per species.

Known mortality of rhinoceros auklets was second only to common murres; however, the

statewide breeding population for this species may be among the largest for all seabirds in

Washington, and the effects from the oil spill at the population level are unclear. The estimated

breeding population of rhinoceros auklets within the spill zone is about half its total statewide

population (27,872 and 55,662 birds, respectively), and if the Tenyo Maru oil spill affected only

this portion of the population, upwards of 2% of that portion may have been killed. Tufted

puffin mortality was nearly as high as or higher than that of rhinoceros auklets. However, this

mortality may have totaled 9% of the tufted puffin’s statewide population (5,582 birds) making

the effects of this spill on this species considerably greater than the effects on the rhinoceros

auklet population.

Oil lingered in giant kelp &kzcrocystis) and bull kelp QVereocystis) dominated kelp beds from

Cape Alava north to Tatoosh Island and from Tatoosh Island east to Waadah Island, for up to

two weeks following the spill. During the natural resource damage assessment process,

laboratory and mesocosm studies conducted by Battelle’s Pacific Northwest Marine Sciences

Laboratory showed that samples of weathered and unweathered Bunker C, diesel, and crude oils

can be toxic to Nereocyctis kelp by affecting blade growth and physiological functions. (Antrim

et al. 1995)

l-5
Draft of January 7,1999

Quantification of injuries to fish, shellfish, and the fisheries resources, including injury to fishery

associated habitats, were not pursued as part of the damage assessment process. Therefore, little

data were collected that would either defend or rei%te assertions of injury to fisheries. Injury to

human scale organisms (those visible by unaided sight) inhabiting the intertidal zone were not

observed to be sufficient to trigger efforts to quantify injuries. An oiled and dead harbor seal

pup and a sea otter were found. Woodbury and Deither (1991:7) stated that the oil that washed

ashore along Washington coastal beaches “affected only the high and very high intertidal or

supra littoral zone . . . . which is relatively depauperate. The areas of direct impact were patchy,

and no devastating destruction or mass mortality was observed . . . . [and] intertidal areas

surveyed in August [ 19911 and resurveyed September [ 199 I] showed no gross community

change.” Again, results from initial surveys did not indicate fkther studies were feasible.

1.4 Public Involvement and Plan Implementation

Public involvement is required in the development of a restoration plan. Toward this end, the

Trustee Committee has made, and will continue to make, opportunities available for the public

to participate in the restoration planning process.

As part of the development of this restoration planning process, a scoping document was

prepared and released in November 1995. The scoping document contained information

describing the incident and injured natural resources, restoration criteria, and possible restoration

actions. The public was invited to review and provide recommendations to be considered during

the restoration planning process. Two public meetings were held to give the public an early

opportunity to engage in discussions regarding the preparation of the restoration plan. Meetings

were held in Port Angeles and Seattle, Washington in November 1995. The Trustee Committee

responded directly to the Scoping questions and comments from the public. See Appendix A for

a summary of oral and written comments.

This DRP/EA will be provided to the public for a minimum of a 60-day review and comment

period. Notices regarding the availability of the draft document will be published locally, and

copies of the draft document will be sent to interested members of the public, agencies,

organizations and public representatives. A public information meeting addressing the DRP/EA

will also be held during the public comment period. A summary of all public comments to the

proposed plan and a responsiveness summary will be provided in the final Plan and will be part

of the Administrative Record. The final EA./RP will be prepared and released to the public

following an evaluation of all comments received from this draft Plan. Public review of the

DRP/EA is consistent with all federal and state laws and regulations that apply to the OPA and

NEPA processes.

The Trustee Committee intends to review the restoration plan annually and evaluate the success

of the projects being carried out by comparing results with stated goals of each restoration

project. Reviews will focus on determining the efficacy of, and suggestions for, improving the

selected activities as well as determining that the restoration projects minimize, avoid, or

compensate for any potential environmental impacts which may arise during the project
Draft of January 7,1999

implementation. Major revisions to the .final EARP will be subject to public review.

1-7
Draft of January 20,1999

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF CONCERN

This section describes the restoration area and identifies natural resources of concern that could

be affected by the Plan. It provides a discussion of the current conditions that will be used as a

comparison with conditions after restoration activities have been implemented. The primary

restoration area refers to the geographic area primarily impacted by the spill (Fig. I-1). The

expanded restoration area refers to a larger area that has a biological connection to the primary

area through an injured species or the food web to which it is a part. The primary and expanded

restoration area extends from Waadah Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, down the outer

Washington and Oregon coasts to the Winchuck River. Watersheds leading into the Washington

marine waters within the primary restoration area are included. Because of the biological link to

birds killed from the oil spill and the importance of seabird colonies, Protection Island National

Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Smith Island and San Juan Island areas have been included in the

expanded restoration area.

2.1 Affected Environment

2.1.1 Land Ownership

Makah Indian Reservation

The Makah Indian reservation is located on the northwestern tip of the Olympic Peninsula in

Clallam County, Washington. The total land area of 47 square miles is bounded on the west by

the Pacific Ocean and on the north by the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The shoreline of the

Reservation is typically rocky headlands and sandy beaches. Over 1,000 acres of the land

bordering the Pacific Ocean have been reserved as a Wilderness Area. Other reserved areas are

Tatoosh and Waadah Islands. The Tatoosh Island complex supports the largest nesting colony of

common murres in Washington. Ten species of marine birds, representing 88% of the birds

known to be injured or killed from the Tenyo Maru oil spill, nest on Tatoosh Island (Parrish

1996a).

.State Upland Properties

The terrestrial environment of the Olympic Peninsula encompasses diverse topography, geology,

and biology. The forest and stream ecosystems that are connected to the area affected by the

Tenyo Miru oil spill provide complex and numerous means of ecological support to various

primary injured species. These connections can be direct, such as providing habitat for certain

seabirds, or indirect, such as providing the sedimentation regime necessary to support kelp

communities. Upland areas also support numerous plant, mammal, fish, and bird communities.

Management of upland area use is determined by its ownership. The following paragraphs

describe the Washington State management programs.

Upland Trust Lands. The DNR manages substantial holdings of upland trust lands in the

watersheds that drain to the primary marine area. A Habitat Conservation Plan for Western

Washington has recently been adopted that will provide long-term protections for the northern

2-l
Draft of January 20,1999

spotted owl and other species of concern, including salmonids (Washington Department of

Natural Resources 1997).

Washington Department of Natural Resources - Forest Practices Program The DNR, under the

direction of the Forest Practices Board, regulates forest practices on private forest lands. The

program evaluates forest practices and assesses environmental impacts.

Washington Department of Natural Resources - Special Lands Program. The DNR acquires and

manages special lands, of significance to unique or threatened plants or animals, as Natural Area

Preserves or Natural Resources Conservation Areas and cooperates with other authorities to

create parks or reserves as warranted.

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

The Northern Washington coastal area also includes Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

(OCNMS), covering an area of approximately 3,300 square miles. The OCNMS is managed by

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. From Koitlah Point west of Neah Bay in

the north to the mouth of the Copalis River in the south, the shoreline boundary is mean higher

high water where adjacent to federally owned land (including Olympic National Park and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Refuges) and mean lower low water mark when adjacent to state

owned land or tribal land. Seaward boundaries approximate the 100 fathom isobath, extending

offshore 30-40 miles. The Sanctuary supports one of the world’s most diverse kelp communities

/ and provides extensive habitat for myriad seabird and marine mammal species. It complements /

the area’s other designations by providing protected status to marine waters that surround

I national wildlife refuge islands and national park coastal lands, which are vital foraging habitats

I for seabirds and marine mammals.

I

I

Olympic National Park I

/

j A narrow, detached portion of the Olympic National Park extends south from the Makah Tribal /

, lands to Kalaloch. The Park is managed by the National Park Service. It is known as the coastal

,

I strip and has 57 miles of the most primitive natural coastline in the lower 48 states. The I

,

/ dramatic sea, cliffs, headlands, islands, and seastacks, coupled with the rich biological and

I

, archeological resources, provide a unique recreational experience. Five major intertidal habitat

1 types have been described for this wilderness coast, making it one of the most complex and i

t diverse shoreline communities in the United States. The coastal strip varies between 0.5 and 3

E

I

[ miles in width. The Park boundary extends seaward to the lowest low tide line and includes the

I intertidal beaches, rocky headlands and tidepools. About 70% of the 43,000 acres is I

I Congressionally designated as wilderness. It has also been designated by the United Nations

,1

1 Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a Biosphere Reserve and a

I World Heritage Site.

/

1 Natiunal Wildlife Refuges

I The National Wildlife Refuges are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The outer

f coast affected area in Washington includes four National Wildlife Refuges (NWR): Copalis

1

1 : 2-2

1

f

F

r
Draft of January 20,1999

NWR, Flattery Rocks NWR, Quillayute Needles NWR, and the Willapa Bay NWR. They are

comprised of approximately 870 islands and rocks strung along the coast. All the National

Wildlife Refuge islands north of Grays Harbor, with the exception of Destruction Island, have

been designated as wilderness. The Willapa Bay NWR provides feeding and resting habitat for

migratory shorebirds. The San Juan Island NWR is made up of 83 rock islands and reefs

scattered throughout the San Juan Island complex, including Smith Island, most of which have

been established as wilderness areas. Six National Wildlife Refuges have been established along

the Oregon coast. The Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge includes the Oregon Islands

which extend almost the entire length of the Oregon Coast, Cape Meares NWR and Three Arch

Rock NWR. The Refuge islands in Washington and Oregon provide nesting, foraging, and

resting habitat for seabirds. They are also important as pupping, resting, and molting sites for

marine mammals.

2.1.2 Species in the Affected Environment

Matine Birds

Over 72% of Washington’s marine birds nest on the outer coast north from near Point Grenville

to Seal and Sail Rocks near Neah Bay (Speich and Wahl 1989). Sixteen species of marine birds

nest in this area with a total estimated population over 218,000 birds. The most numerous

species include Cassin’s auklets, Leach’s storm-petrels (Oceanudi-oma Zeucorhoa), common

murres, rhinoceros auklets, glaucous-winged (Larus glaucescens) and western gulls (&VUS

occidentalis), and tufted puffms (Speich and Wahl 1989).

Approximately 22% (over 66,000 birds) of Washington’s marine birds nest within the inner

marine waters, with 16% found on Protection Island (Speich and Wahl 1989). Protection Island

is one of the three main rhinoceros auklet colonies in the state with over 55% of the state’s

breeding population for this species. It supports 30% of the state’s breeding populations of

glaucous-winged gulls and pigeon guillemots,‘and 18% of the state’s total number of pelagic

cormorants (Phalacrocoraxpelagicus) (Speich and Wahl 1989). Thirteen pairs of tufted puffins

nested on Protection Island in 1993 (Wilson, pers. comm., 1996), which is the only puffin

nesting colony currently in Washington’s inner marine waters. Approximately 33% of

Washington’s double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) nest in the inner marine

waters (Speich and Wahl 1989).

More than a dozen species of seabirds nest on the rocks and islands of the 300 mile Oregon

Coast. The Oregon Islands and Three Arch Rocks NWRs provide critical nesting habitat for

more than one million seabirds. Common murres are the most numerous with an estimated

mean breeding population since 1988 of 722,500 birds (Lowe and Pitkin 1996). Other nesting

seabirds include rhinoceros auklets, pigeon guillemots, tufted puffins, cormorants, and western

and glaucous-winged gulls.

Common murres, marbled murrelets and rhinoceros auklets will likely benefit from many of the

restoration projects. The following species discussions provide information as to why their

2-3
Draft of January 20,1999

populations are of particular interest in Washington.

Common 1Mzcrre.s. Common murre populations in Washington are of concern for the following

reasons: I) a precipitous decline in colony attendance throughout the state occurred during the

1983 El Nifio, principally at the southern colonies around Pt. Grenville, and at Split and

Willoughby Rocks, attendance has remained depressed through at least the 1996 breeding

season; 2) during the time period of little or no recovery since the 1983 El Ni no, two major oil

spills have occurred off the coast of Washington, the Nestuccu and the Tenyo Mwu, and

common murres were the principal seabird species killed in both spills; 3) common murres are

the principal seabird species killed in gillnets; oil spills and gillnet mortality may have

contributed to the lack of common murre recovery since the 1983 El Ni no (see Takekawa et al.

[ 19901 for effects of gillnet and oil spill mortalities on common murres nesting in California)

and; 4) common murres on Tatoosh Island, the only stable colony in Washington, have been

seriously disrupted by bald eagles and predation by gulls (Parrish 1995, 1996a).

Marbled A&w-relets. The Washington, Oregon, and California populations of marbled murrelets

were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on September 28, 1992 (57

Fed. Reg. 45328). The Washington State Wildlife Commission (now Fish and Wildlife

Commission) classified the Washington population of marbled murrelets as threatened in

October 1993 (Protected Wildlife Classification, subcategory Threatened; WAC 232-12-o 11).

The most recent estimate of the Washington breeding population of marbled murrelets was 5,000

birds (Speich and Wahl 1995). This estimate is based on surveys in the early 1980s. LJsing

current juvenile/adult ratios and a population model, Beissinger (1995) indicated that the

marbled murrelet population is declining 4-7% annually. This decline is primarily due to the

loss of old growth forests. Nest predation, mortality through net fisheries, and oil spills have

also contributed to this decline.

Rhinoceros Azdkkets. Washington’s population of rhinoceros auklets is estimated at less than

60,000 birds (Speich and Wahl 1989). Approximately 50% of the population is located on the

outer coast of the Olympic peninsula (primarily on Destruction Island) and the remainder are

located in the Straits of Juan de Fuca on Protection Island and the San Juan Islands (primarily on

Smith Island) (Speich and Wahl 1989). The population trend for rhinoceros auklets on the outer

coast is unknown. However, a decline in the number of rhinoceros auklets nesting in the inner

marine waters has been observed. Between 1976 and 1993, a 26% and 40% decline of

rhinoceros auklet nesting burrow densities was recorded on Kannen and Violet Points,

respectively, on Protection Island. A decline in the number of rhinoceros auklets nesting on

Smith Island, observed the past 6 to 7 years, has been attributed to disturbance by a doublecrested cormorant colony situated on top of the auklet colony. The number of rhinoceros auklets

drowned in gillnets is second only to common murres. The Nestzkcca and Tenyo lMaru oil spills

also killed rhinoceros auklets in Washington State.

Kelp Community

2-4
Draft of January 20,1999

A number of species of considerable ecological, commercial, and recreational value are known

to rely on kelp beds for refuge and feeding, and potentially could benefit from kelp restoration

activities. The importance of kelp beds can be divided into three functions: productivity, habitat,

and hydrodynamics.

ppoductivity. Kelp plants provide input to the food web in four ways: (I) directly while

the plant material is still attached to a substrate, (2) directly while the plant material is

detached but still respiring (floating mats, etc.), (3) indirectly by providing detritus that

fall to the bottom and is eaten, and (4) by producing dissolved organic matter (DOM)

that is food for many microorganisms. Productivity of kelp beds is estimated at between

350- 1500 g carbon/m2 /yr, making them one of the most productive systems on earth.

Kelp beds support a rich and diverse community of planktonic, epiphytic, and epibenthic

organisms that serve as prey for fish and invertebrates. Kelp is an important part of the

diet of herbivorous invertebrates such as purple urchins (Strongylocentrotus pupuratus),

red sea urchins (8. fanciscanus) and northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkanu). Youngof-the-year, juvenile, and adult forage fish species such as Pacific herring (Clupea

pallasii), northern anchovy (Engraulis mord&), and sand lance (Ammodjtes hexapterus)

are abundant in and around kelp beds and feed extensively on planktonic invertebrates

associated with these beds. These forage fish also form an important component of the

diet of piscivorous seabirds (e.g., common murre, rhinoceros auklet) occurring in the

northeastern Pacific Ocean (e.g., Vermeer et al. 1987). Adult lingcod (Ophiodon

1 elongatus), true cod (Gadus macrocephalus), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus),

and large schools of black rockfrsh (Sebastes melanops) and yellowtail rockfish (,!C

Jlavidus) aggregate in and along the periphery of kelp beds and forage to a large extent

on other fish using the kelp beds.

Habitat. Bull whip kelp, Nereocystis luetkeana, and giant kelp, Macrocystis integrifolia,

beds provide significant habitat for a number of organisms. The beds provide a place of

refuge, and a substrate for reproduction. The canopy formed during the summer and fall

shades the plants below, thereby influencing the amounts and kinds of plants that co-exist

in the kelp beds.

“The Nereocystis Zuetkeana plants create a habitat wherein diversity and abundance of

fish species increases over non-kelp areas” (Leaman 1976). Wheeler (1990) states ”

larger pink salmon, lingcod and Pacific cod were found more frequently inMacrocystis

beds than in non-kelp areas. Large lingcod, large Pacific cod, small pink salmon and

small chinooks are more commonly found in Nereocystis beds over non-kelp areas.”

Sea otters (Enhydra Zutris), recently reintroduced to the Washington coast, have a close

association with kelp beds. They feed on many of the associated organisms, use kelp to

rest in, and their feeding activities profoundly change the kelp community (Bowlby et al.

1988).

2-5
Draft of January 20,1999

Some marine birds and shorebirds, such as marbled murrelets, have been demonstrated to

be closely associated with the kelp beds along the north coast and western Strait of Juan

de Fuca (Thompson 1996).

Hydrodynamics. Hydrodynamic effects can be divided into those with physical and

biological ramifications. Kelp beds absorb wave energy and dampen wave action

shoreward of the bed. Wave action influences beach slope and stability, and beach

material makeup and therefore loss of kelp and the resultant wave dampening may

change the beach makeup and the types or numbers of organisms that use the beach

material.

Kelp plants act as active transporters of rock material (Emery 1941). Young sporophytes

begin growth on any rock surface in size from sand grains up to boulders. When the

plant reaches the size at which the hydrodynamic drag of the plant can move the rock

substrate, the plant/rock may be moved into deeper water, onto the shore, or along the

shore. Significant amounts and sizes and rocks up to one foot in diameter can be moved

in this manner. Reduction in the number of plants or plant size will reduce this material

transport. (Duggins 1988)

Marine Mammals

Several populations of pinnipeds are common to the Olympic Coast, including harbor seals

(Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), and Stellar sea lions (Eumetopias

jubatus) (NOAA 1993). An important sea otter population numbering about 500 individuals, is

located along the Olympic Coast (Jameson 1997). The California gray whale (Eschrichtius

robustus) and harbor porpoise (Phocoenaphocoena) are also common to the area (NOAA 1993).

2-6
Draft of January 20,1999

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES, PROPOSED PROJECTS,

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Development of Restoration Alternatives

The OPA regulations require trustees to develop a reasonable range of primary and compensatory

restoration alternatives and then identify the preferred alternatives based on criteria provided at

15 CFR Part 990.54(a). Primary restoration is action(s) taken to return injured natural resources

and services to baseline on an accelerated time frame. Compensatory restoration is action(s) taken

to compensate for the interim losses of natural resources and services pending recovery.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to restoration actions taken by federal

trustees. To reduce transaction costs and avoid delays in restoration, the OPA regulations

encourage the trustees to conduct the NEPA process concurrently with the development of the

draft restoration plan.

To comply with the requirements of NEPA, the Trustees analyzed the effects of each preferred

alternative on the quality of the human environment. NEPA’s implementing regulations direct

federal agencies to evaluate the potential significance of proposed actions by considering both

context and intensity. For most of the actions proposed in this DRP/EA, the appropriate context

for considering potential significance of the action is regional, as opposed to national or

worldwide.

Several restoration alternatives included in this section are based on conceptual designs rather than

detailed engineering design work or operational plans. Therefore, details of specific projects may

require additional refinements or adjustments to reflect site conditions or other factors.

Restoration project designs also may change to reflect public comments and further Trustee

analysis. The Trustees assume that implementation of restoration will begin in 1999-2000.

The primary goal of restoration is to meet the statutory objective to compensate the public for

injuries to natural resources from the TenyoMam oil spill. Injury was clearly documented for

seabirds and kelp from this incident. Therefore, the goals provided in this Plan are to restore,

rehabilitate, or replace specific populations of seabirds and kelp beds (including their associated

communities). The primary objective is to provide a functioning and sustainable ecosystem

where specific populations of seabirds and kelp beds are enhanced to provide a net gain of habitat

function beyond existing conditions.

In accordance with the consent decree, the MOA, OPA and the TenyoMaru Trustee Committee’s

Resolution 96-1, expenditures from the Tenyo Mar-u restoration fund are limited to implementing

restoration projects that meet the following minimum restoration criteria:

1) Restoration projects must be directly linked to natural resources shown to be injured

3-l
Draft of January 20,1999

2)

3)

4)

from the Tenyo Mwu oil spill. Seabirds, and to a lesser extent, kelp habitats, are the

only resources for which there exists documented injury;

Restoration projects will be linked either geographically or biologically to the physical

area where the impacts of the spill occurred;

Restoration projects. will restore, rehabilitate, replace or acquire the equivalent of

injured natural resources; and,

Restoration projects will be consistent with relevant federal, state and tribal laws,

regulations and policies.

Pilot Projects Conducted to Assist with Restoration Planning

Some of the dollars generated as interest from the restoration fund were used to support pilot

projects necessary for restoration planning. These projects also helped establish the necessary

baseline from which the success of the restoration efforts can be measured. The Trustee

Committee determined that projects had to enable the preparation of the RIVEA and be limited to

the collection of data that would have been irretrievably lost if the project were not conducted, and

was beyond normal agency work. The projects funded for these reasons were:

FWS aerial surveys of common murre colonies in Washington and Oregon.

The FWS historically has conducted annual, single aerial surveys off the coast of

Washington and Oregon. During each of the 1995, 1996, and 1997 common

murre breeding seasons, three additional surveys were flown in Washington and

two in Oregon.

Tatoosh Island common murres. Common murre productivity and reproductive

success on Tatoosh Island was evaluated in 1995-97. The studies were conducted

by the University of Washington, and continued similar work initiated in 1991.

Seabird prev-base studv. A seabird prey-base study was conducted in 1995 as a

cooperative program between the University of Washington and WDFW.

At-sea distribution of common murres and marbled murrelets. An at-sea

distribution study of common murres and marbled murrelets was conducted by

WDFW in 1996 and 1997.

Kelp distribution. Aerial surveys of kelp distribution were conducted in 1996 and

data were analyzed from the 1994 survey.

Common murre population genetics. A population genetics analysis of common

murre colonies in Washington and Oregon was conducted in 1996 and 1997 by

3-2
Draft of January 20,1999

WDFW to determine the type of restoration (including

would be best prescribed for specific localities.

natural recovery) that

3.2 Proposed Alternatives and Potential Projects

To restore natural resources lost as a result of the Tenyu Miwu oil spill, the Tenyo

Mru Trustee Committee developed four Alternatives: ’

A) No action/ Natural Recovery (required by the OPA and NRDA regulations and

the NEPA process)

B) Population-Focused Restoration

C) Habitat-focused Restoration

D) An Integrative Approach

The following sections describe the proposed restoration alternatives, their environmental

consequences, and specific project proposals. Additional and different projects may be proposed

or adopted based on public and agency comments received on this EA/DRP. Work plans and

detailed scopes, schedules, and budgets and the appropriate environmental documents and ’

applicable permits will be prepared for review and adoption by the Trustee Committee before

implementation of any project. The project managers will ensure that all monitoring reports and

data will be shared among all the selected projects to ensure a more comprehensive picture of the

effects of those activities on the bird and kelp species being restored under this restoration

program. The alternatives are evaluated and a preferred alternative is named in Section 4. .

Project proposal schedules and estimated budgets are provided in Section 4.1.

3.2.1 Alternative A: No-Action/Natural Recovery

NEPA requires the Trustees to consider a “no action” alternative, and the OPA regulations require

consideration of the equivalent, the natural recovery option. Under this alternative, the Trustees

would take no direct action to restore injured natural resources or compensate for lost services

pending environmental recovery. Instead, the Trustees would rely on natural processes for

recovery of the injured natural resources. While natural recovery would occur over varying time

scales for various injured resources, the interim losses suffered would not be compensated under

the no-action alternative.

The no-action alternative has no direct environmental consequences because, by definition, no

manipulations to the environment would take place. However the no-action alternative may

negatively affect injured populations indirectly if particular anthropogenic activities, independent

of the Tenyo Mauu restoration process, take place. For example, the no-action alternative

precludes the use of restoration funds to purchase forest habitat that has direct benefit to marbled

murrelet populations. If these habitats are logged, marbled murrelet populations will be

negatively affected.

3-3
Draft of Januarv 20,1999

3.2.2 Alternative B: Population-Focused Restoration

Projects conducted under this alternative will attempt to beneficially affect populations of injured

species by directly or indirectly manipulating one or more population demographic factors (e.g.,

survival, number of adults attempting to breed, age at first breeding attempt). A population’s size

may be increased, restored, or distribution may be altered by increasing immigration, releasing

rehabilitated injured individuals, enhancing natal recruitment, and improving reproductive

success at specific localities.

The rate of seabird population growth is a function of net immigration-emigration, survival, and

productivity (i.e., reproductive success); restoration projects conducted under this alternative will

focus on these population parameters. As with seabirds, populations of kelp are also affected by

rates of survival, reproductive success and immigration-emigration.

Specific project proposals consistent with the population-focused restoration alternative are

identified in Sections 3.2.2.1 through 3.2.2.4. Although any manipulation to a wild population

may have unforeseen consequences to that population or to the ecosystem to which that

population is a part, the environmental consequences of properly conceived, designed,

implemented, and monitored projects conducted under this alternative should be minimal. Under

this alternative, no adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated, however,

the appropriate consultations under the Endangered Species Act will be pursued for projects that

may affect federally listed species.

3.2.2.1 Restoration of Common Murre Colonies in Copalis National Wildlife Refuge,

Washington

Puqwse(s): The purpose of this project is to restore common murre colonies, using social

attraction techniques, to locations in the Copalis NWR that are not used now for breeding,

but traditionally were the locations of the largest breeding colonies in Washington State.

Project goals: The goals of this project are to increase the presence of murres at the site,

elicit breeding behavior, breeding activities, and breeding attempts. The long term goal is

to reestablish a self-sustainable breeding population within the Copalis NWR.

Potentialproject coordinators; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Project descriptiun: This project assumes that the reason common murres are not

attempting to breed at the chosen site is the result of low population numbers and/or

behavioral phenomena associated with the social aspects of common murre colony

dynamics. Social attraction is a restoration technique that uses decoys, sound recording,

and other devices to attract potential recruits to a specific location or habitat. The

technique works much the same way “traditional” waterfowl decoys work in that decoys,

sound recordings, and other devices (e.g., mirrors) are placed in a way that mimics an

3-4
Draft of January 20,1999

active breeding colony, sub-colony, or social aggregation.

Aerial surveys during 1997-1998 indicated larger numbers of murres attending some of the

colonies in the Point Grenville area of the Copalis NWR. Small numbers (5-l 0) of murre

chicks were observed. Phase I information will be used to intensively assess the status of

these colonies over a two-year period. The information gathered during Phase I will be

used to determine whether Phase II should be implemented. This project may be

determined infeasible if implementation would interfere with natural breeding efforts or if

factors other than the lack of social cohesion are resulting in a lack of breeding efforts at

these sites.

Phase II would involve the deployment of common murre social attraction devices at

historical breeding colonies within the Copalis NWR

Proposed activities:

Phase I - Feasibility Studv

The purpose of Phase I is to assess the potential effectiveness and feasibility of the

project. This would involve two years of data collection to determine if: (1) social

attraction enhancement activities are warranted, and (2) project implementation would be

impeded by physical or natural limitations. No decoys will be deployed during Phase I.

Several observation points at Point Grenville will be established. Sites will be monitored

to determine if common murre breeding is currently occurring at any of the potential sites

or any other colony rock in the vicinity. Monitoring will also determine if disturbance (by

eagles or any other natural or anthropogenic activities), and not the lack of social

attraction, is preventing breeding and whether the disturbance can be managed. Because

breeding activity may be occurring on sides of the rock not visible from the shore, boat

and aerial surveys of the areas will also be conducted to assess attendance and breeding

status.

If the results from Phase I suggest that social attraction techniques are a viable option at

these sites, and these sites can be adequately monitored for behavioral interactions with

the attraction devices, and for reproductive success, Phase II should be implemented. If

carrying out Phase II is not feasible or beneficial, the remaining funding will be

redistributed to the Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt Reduction Project

(Section 3 -3.1)

Phase II

Phase II would deploy the social attraction devices and monitor the results. Roughly 200-

500 life-sized common murre decoys, in standing and incubation postures, would be

placed at a single site. Decoys will be arranged in clusters, with the size and spacing of

each group dependent on the topography of the site, and based on preliminary results from

other similar projects, such as the Apex Houston restoration project, managed by the FWS

for the OPA Trustees(USFWS 1995). In addition to decoys, mirrors and omnidirectional

3-5
Draft of January 20,1999

weather resistant loudspeakers will be placed throughout the site. The loudspeakers will

broadcast common murre vocalizations typically heard at breeding colonies.

Benefits: This specific project benefits common murre populations, injured by the Tenyo

lMaru oil spill, by attempting to increase the number of birds breeding at a specific habitat.

It alters seabird behavior to entice the murres to resume breeding within the Copalis NWR

where historically large breeding colonies existed. Affecting immigration potentially may

be the easiest and fastest way of increasing a population if there are mechanisms by which

individuals can be brought or attracted to an area (social attraction). Facilitating

relocation of otherwise non-breeding murres to locations where large breeding colonies

historically occurred is expected to have a beneficial impact on the species’ population.

Environmental consequences: The restoration of seabird populations will proceed by

increasing the number of individual seabirds that attempt to breed. The project actions

taken under this alternative are designed to increase the rate of immigration, decrease the

age at which individuals first attempt to breed, and increase the probability that an adult

bird will attempt to breed during any given year, at a particular site. As such, this project

provides the mechanisms for relatively rapid colonization and restoration at localities

where breeding does not occur, or is severely depressed. Project restoration goals are for

nesting murres to increase to a level that would create self-sustaining and viable colonies

at target locations.

This project has little or no impact upon other injured resources or resources of concern.

Adverse impacts to wildlife could occur as there is some potential for actions that benefit

one group of species to have short-term impacts on other species. For example, as the

number of individual murres in a specific colony expands, prey fish may be impacted

short-term. Raptors may be affected in the short term either negatively by reducing the

potential prey base (breeding colony murres) at the translocation site or positively by

increasing the potential prey base at the relocation site. A potential negative consequence

of this action would be that birds are lured from a more optimal breeding locality to breed

at a potentially sub-optimal site. However, it is very unlikely that an entire successful

colony would move, so any negative impact would be minimal.

Any environmental consequences associated with population manipulation would be

minimal and short-term.

Project pal monitoring: This project includes intensive monitoring of attendance,

breeding productivity, and other bird activity at the site and sub-colonies in the vicinity.

Monitoring will be linked with the Seabird By-Catch Reduction project (Section 3.2.2.4)

measuring and comparing Tatoosh Island productivity monitoring data with the Pt.

Grenville site. Intensive monitoring of the restoration site, data collection from a

reference site, and murre population monitoring (beyond what would normally be

conducted by the refuge) would be conducted.

3-6
3.2.2.2

Draft of January 20,1999

Oiled Wildlife Rehabilitation Center

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to provide base funding so that additional funds

can be secured and used to improve the capability to rehabilitate oiled wildlife (primarily

seabirds) in western Washington.

Project goal= The goal of this project is to improve the State of Washington’s ability to

rescue, rehabilitate, and release oiled wildlife. This project is premised on the State of

Washington securing the remaining funds from other sources to build a permanent

rehabilitation facility in the South Puget Sound area and to develop a primary care facility

at Neah Bay.

Potentialproject coordinator: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Project description and activities: Since the Tenyo Mar-u oil spill, Washington has

become a leader in the field of oiled wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the

rehabilitation center, a major component of the state’s wildlife rescue and rehabilitation

program, has been leased out by the owners for other purposes and will no longer be

available for use as a rehabilitation facility. The loss of the facility has suddenly nullified

Washington’s ability to rescue, rehabilitate, and release oiled wildlife.

This project proposes to provide some funding to the State to help build a rehabilitation

center in the South Puget Sound area. The center would operate under the protocols of

the Washington Wildlife Coalition. The Washington Wildlife Coalition was convened, and

is chaired, by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as required by Section 12 of

the 1990 Washington State Legislature House Bill 2494 to plan and coordinate the rescue

and rehabilitation of wildlife injured or endangered by spills of oil or other toxic substances.

It comprises members and advisors from state and federal agencies, environmental

organizations, and industries that have responsibilities, expertise, or interests in the

protection of wildlife resources. The proposed rehabilitation center could receive oiled

birds from any primary care station in Washington or Oregon and provide long-term care

for oiled wildlife to prepare them for release back into their natural environment.

This center would also be used to research more effective techniques for cleaning oiled

wildlife to maximize the survival rate, especially when rehabilitating threatened and

endangered species. When not working with oiled birds from a spill, the center may be

used for informational and educational outreach as well as a training facility for wildlife

rehabilitations, researchers, and veterinarians.

In addition to a long-term care facility, a 40-foot, primary care trailer, stocked with

appropriate primary bird care supplies would be provided at Neah Bay. This trailer would

be permanently positioned on the Makah Reservation at Neah Bay to provide immediate

3-7
Draft of January 20,1999

care for oiled birds in case of another oil spill there. The primary care facility would give

emergency care to oiled animals and stabilize them for transport to the rehabilitation center.

A pole-barn type roof would be built over the trailer for long term protection from the

elements. This primary care station would operate under the direction of the Washington

Wildlife Rescue Coalition during oil spills.

Members of the oil or shipping industry that contribute matching funds for building and

maintaining the center may be able to use the center at a reduced rate if they have a spill.

Oil spillers that did not contribute to the center will likely pay the standard daily rate.

Monies collected will be used for operations and maintenance. Any funds collected that

exceed the operations and maintenance costs will be placed in a Seabird

Restoration/Research Account. The funds from this account would be used to gain a better

understanding of Washington’s seabirds and to explore new techniques for assuring their

survival.

Benefits: To increase the rate of population growth (or to stabilize or reverse a

population decline), immigration, survival at any or all age classes, reproductive success,

and probability of breeding must be increased. Successfully rehabilitating and releasing

oiled seabirds may contribute to population recruitment and stabilization.

Environmental consequences: The intent of this project is to provide a starting point to

act as a catalyst for the Washington Wildlife Coalition to secure funding for a wildlife

rehabilitation center and a primary care facility. The majority of the funding for this

project is to come from outside sources. The overall contribution ($500,000) to the

development of the facilities from Tenyo A&ru funds is about one-fourth of the cost of the

center (roughly estimated at $1.8 - $2.2 million). In addition, this project also provides

for excess user fees to be returned to seabird restoration/research projects.

The environmental consequences associated with providing a catalyst for the collection of .

additional funds to support wildlife rehabilitation is expected to be minimal. A separate

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (EIS) will be conducted by

the State for any rehabilitation facility construction activities. There is a slight possibility

that adverse impacts, such as disease, could occur to wildlife from the activities associated

with rehabilitation and release of wild animals_ Rehabilitated animals may play a vital

role in maintaining and improving their species populations and in providing function to

the ecosystem. Under this alternative, no adverse impacts to threatened or endangered

species are anticipated. Restoring populations through rehabilitating individuals and

returning them to the wild population is expected to benefit the species directly.

l+oject goal monitoring: The Washington Wildlife Rescue Coalition will provide interim

reports to the Tenyu A4i-m Trustee Committee on the success of securing additional funds

for the rehabilitation facilities and on the process of improving Washington’s ability to

rescue, rehabilitate, and release oiled wildlife.

3-8
Draft of January 20,1999

3.2.2.3 Public Education Signs and Brochures

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to inform boaters, kayakers, aircraft pilots, and

other visitors about disturbance impacts to nesting seabird colonies and Makah culturally

sensitive areas and educate them on how to avoid such disturbances.

Project goal: The public with access to seabird colonies will become informed about the

negative impacts of human disturbance on seabird productivity and survival. Through

education, individuals may modify their behavior that would cause a decrease in

disturbance of seabirds.

Potential project coordinators: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Makah Indian Tribe

Project description: An education campaign using on-site interpretation and publications

would be developed to describe the wildlife using the coastal NWR islands in Oregon and

Washington, and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) in Washington

(including NWRs and Tatoosh Island). The campaign will focus on messages of the value

of protected coastal habitats, seabird colonies, why these islands and wildlife are protected,

how to avoid human disturbance, and tribal bird terms. The campaign will build on current

education efforts in OCNMS in areas of reducing impacts from aircraft overflights. It will

build upon multi-agency interpretation and education programs currently operated among

FWS, Washington State Parks (WSP), Olympic National Park (ONP), and OCNMS. The

campaign will also complement and enhance FWS education efforts underway with

Nestucca oil spill restoration funds.

Proposed activities: (1) Interpretive planning. Education program representatives from

FWS, NPS, WSP, OCNMS, coastal tribes and other potential partner agencies and

organizations will identify needs, opportunities and critical gaps in existing information and

education programs. The group will also assist in the development of strong marine

resource protection and restoration messages that will be effective with specific target

audiences and assist in the design of methods to monitor the effectiveness of the

education campaign. (2) Signs. Signs would be placed where boaters have access to

marine waters near seabird nesting colonies. Tenyo Mar-u oil spill restoration funding would

be used at eleven ports along the Oregon Coast from the Columbia River south to

Brookings, Oregon and at Tatoosh Island, in OCNMS. This project will correlate with

Nestucca oil spill restoration funding to address the remaining Washington Coast. (3)

Publications. Brochures and other printed material would be developed and distributed to

visitors and users of the marine environment, including recreational users (kayakers,

sportfishers, divers, private pilots etc.) and commercial users.

Benefits: It has been documented that seabird reproductive success is reduced through

disturbance resulting from human intrusion into colonies (Anderson and Keith 1980;

Anderson 1988; Hunt 1972; and Kury and Go&field 1975). Boats, private and military

aircraft, and people have been observed near or on nesting islands. Birds and mammals

have been observed to leave the islands in panic flights as a direct result of these

3-9
Draft of January 20,1999

disturbances. The frequency and effects of these disturbances on breeding seabirds have

not been documented. However, the frequency of occurrence is expected to increase as

coastal recreational opportunities increase. As the disturbance of common murre colonies

is reduced and/or prevented, common murre reproductive success may increase. Reduction

of disturbance may also benefit other species that use the islands.

Reducing human disturbance at seabird breeding colonies through educational

efforts may increase the number of breeding adults and is another example of how

controlling human impacts could complement a population-based approach.

Environmental consequences: This project is designed to ease the pressure applied to the

environment from human disturbance. Overall habitat quality, and subsequently habitat

functionality, may be improved and strengthened from this project.

The indirect consequences of carrying out this project include a greater understanding of

human interaction with natural resources, and the consequences of our actions. It is hoped

that the educational efforts will result directly in a decrease in disturbance at breeding

colonies that should result in increased reproductive success of common murres at coastal

Washington and Oregon breeding colonies. An increase in reproductive success may lead

to greater numbers of breeding common murres in Washington and Oregon which will

maintain species diversity and aid in restoring common murre populations to their pre-spill

levels.

The proposed project includes interpretive signs that should make the public more aware

of the environment and the impacts they may unintentionally cause. Although not

anticipated, there is a slight potential that the interpretive signs could draw attention and

more frequent visitors. The signs will be designed to educate, to increase awareness of

disturbance impacts, and not to attract visitors. Any negative environmental impacts of

the educational project are unlikely.

Fkoject goal monitoring: Project monitoring would involve evaluating the effectiveness

of the education campaign through a variety of techniques, including measuring audience

exposure to project messages, changes in audience awareness and knowledge of seabirds

and coastal habitat and documenting changes in audience behavior regarding seabirds.

3.2.2.4 Seabird By-Catch Reduction in Coastal Set-Net Fisheries

Purpose: Certain fishing nets and net fisheries’ activities entangle and drown seabirds.

The purpose of this project is to reduce or eliminate seabird, especially common murre,

by-catch in coastal marine set net fisheries. Investigation and monitoring data and reports

will be distributed to the Tenyo Maru Trustees.

Project goal= The goal of this project is to increase the average survival of adult murres

through gear modifications in local set net fisheries.

3-10
Potential project coordinator: Makah Indian Tribe

Draft of January 20,1999

Project description: This project will be accomplished in two simultaneous parts:

development of acoustic pingers and experimental trials in the set net fisheries, and

monitoring of the Tatoosh Island common murre breeding colony.

Proposed activities: The project is designed such that each part can be accomplished

independently of the others, but all parts are integrated components of the specific

objective of restoration of common murres through mortality reduction.

The coastal set net fishery has already undergone extensive modification to reduce harbor

porpoise by-catch. Pilot work in Puget Sound gill net fisheries suggests that acoustic

pingers may also be successful in reducing seabird by-catch (Melvin et al. 1997); however,

the frequencies (number of sound waves per second) and amplitude (loudness) at the

sound source necessary to elicit the optimum response sensitivity in harbor porpoise and

in seabirds is different. In addition, there is currently no information on the range of

frequencies seabirds, specifically common murres, can detect, or at what frequencies such

sounds would need to be projected to have an effect.

Phase I - Laboratorv Experiments

Estimated range of maximal frequency sensitivity will be measured. To avoid duplication

of effort and other agency funding, the project coordinator will coordinate with any other

agency or organization currently conducting related research in this area.

Phase II - Acoustic Pinner Development

There are currently no available off-the-shelf acoustic pingers for seabirds. Acoustic

pingers with saltwater switches and LED battery-life displays will be developed in

cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), acousticians, and

acoustic equipment firms.

Phase III - Behavioral Response Experiments

Based on the results of Phase I, a range of acoustic pinger prototypes will be developed

and tested in a highly controlled mesocosm. The tests will be designed to determine

whether common murres will respond to auditory signals from acoustic pingers.

The necessity of this phase of the project will be scrutinized and evaluated by the Project

Coordinator and the Trustee Committee if the project is approved for the final restoration

plan.

Phase IV - Field Tests

Based on the pinger development research from phase I-III, one or more acoustic pingers

will be selected to test experimentally in the Northwestern Washington coastal set net

fishery. The experimental tests would be conducted in the ocean fishing areas and/or in

the Strait of Juan de Fuca as necessary. Catch rates measured in experimental nets fitted

3-11
Draft of Januarv 20,1999

with acoustic pingers will be compared to those of control nets without acoustic pingers

fished identically in the same area at the same time. The focus of the experimental work

would be two-fold: 1) to determine whether by-catch of common murres is significantly

reduced when using pingers, and 2) to evaluate and quantify the impact of the use of

acoustic pingers on the potential catch of targeted fish species. Testing for differences in

catch rates of other seabirds, such as rhinoceros auklets, entangled in the fishery may also

be possible.

Phase V - Implementation

Depending on the significance in seabird by-catch reduction documented in the field trials

(Phase IV) and the impacts on catch of targeted fish species, the final phase of this project

will be to purchase and distribute acoustic pingers to the fishery, monitoring of by-catch

reduction efficacy in the modified fishery and effects on catch of target species, and

recommending fishery regulation changes. Research and monitoring data and reports,

along with recommendations, will be distributed to the Trustee Committee.

BeneJits: A potentially significant portion of the total Washington state common murre

population, including breeding and non-breeding adults, subadults, and juvenile birds,

may have been killed by the Tenyo M&u oil spill, in addition to mortalities of other

seabirds as previously described in Section 1.2.. A reduction in common murre mortality

from by-catch in set net fisheries will help to restore the species to its former breeding

level in States of Washington and Oregon. This project attempts to reduce the impacts of

set net fisheries on seabirds and is considered population-focused restoration because it

would potentially alter survival rates of all seabird age classes. It will specifically address

increasing the average survival of adult murres through gear modification in local set net

fisheries, in addition to potentially reducing mortality of adult breeding murres.

Implementation of acoustic pingers may be applicable to other gill net fisheries

experiencing seabird by-catch problems.

, Environmental consequences: The investigative portion of this project will not have

significant negative environmental impacts. The goal of this project is to have little or no

impact on the net fishery while deterring seabirds from set nets. If there are additional nets

set to conduct this investigation, there is potential that there would be an associated

increase in incidental take of seabirds. However, the overall goal of the project is to

reverse the decline of seabirds through the development of fishing methods that reduce

incidental take of seabirds. Any negative impacts to fisheries through catch reduction

caused by implementing acoustic pingers will need to be evaluated against the benefits of

increasing the survival and reproductive success of common murres. Conducting (Phase

V) the purchase and distribution of pingers and making recommendations for fishery

regulation changes are not direct implementation actions, thus, this phase poses no

significant negative impact. The anticipated environmental effect of the project is to

maintain Washington State’s species diversity and abundance through reducing incidental

take of common murres and other seabirds in net fisheries.

Project goal monitoring: In addition to monitoring and comparing the catch rates of

3-12
Draft of January 20,1999

seabirds and fish among set nets modified and not modified with acoustic pingers, the

population of common murres nesting on Tatoosh Island may be monitored

simultaneously with project implementation to determine whether the size and

reproductive status of the closest breeding colony are positively, negatively, or neutrally

affected by the project(s).

Monitoring activities and data will be shared with common murre restoration data

collected in the Copalis NWR Project, if approved (Section 3 -2. l), and with any other

Tenyo A4&+u restoration project where it is applicable.

3.2.3 Alternative C: Habitat-Focused Restoration

Habitat is broadly defined as both the biological and physical environment in which kelp occur or

individual seabirds breed, roost, or forage. Under this alternative, projects would be designed to

restore, enhance, replace and/or acquire habitats that provide benefits to a range of natural

resources injured from the Tenyo Maru oil spill. In this sense, the goal of this alternative is

simply to provide quality habitat. It is assumed that the injured species and services would be

restored, over time, if such habitat is created or otherwise made available. For example, the

protection and/or manipulation of seabird habitats may positively affect seabird population

parameters by increasing the number of breeding adults, increasing reproductive success, and/or

increasing survival of individuals of all age classes. However, the goal of this alternative would

not be the manipulation of these seabird population parameters (see Alternative B), but simply the

manipulation and/or protection of the seabird habitats.

Specific project proposals consistent with the habitat-focused restoration alternative are identified

in Section 3.3.1. Although this project proposes to restore natural habitats, any habitat

manipulation may have unforeseen consequences. Since the objective of this alternative is to

provide quality habitats such that natural processes may result in the recovery of populations, the

environmental consequences of properly conceived, designed, implemented, and monitored

projects conducted under this alternative should be minimal. Under this alternative, no adverse

impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated, however, the appropriate

consultations under the Endangered Species Act will be pursued for projects that may affect

federally listed species. NEPA monitoring will evaluate whether there may be inadvertent

environmental impacts affecting the quality of the environment.

3.2.3.1 Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt Reduction

Purpose: The purpose of this project is twofold. One is to permanently protect marbled

murrelet nesting habitats in Washington State and the second is to reduce silt deposits on

kelp ecosystems at the mouths of streams and rivers in or near the kelp ecosystems

affected by the TenyoMaru oil spill. Projects could be combined marbled murrelet

habitat protection and silt reduction (preferred), marbled murrelet habitat only, or silt

reduction projects only. The driver for selecting projects will be protection of marbled

murrelet nesting habitat and buffer areas. The secondary consideration will be reducing

3-13
siltation.

Draft of January 20,1999

Project goals: The goal of the marbled murrelet component is to permanently protect

marbled murrelet nesting habitat and/or forest stands next to marbled murrelet nesting

habitats. This permanent protection would occur at habitats not presently protected

other regulation and are at risk of being logged or where permanent protection will

significantly enhance the future habitat availability for marbled murrelets.

under

A second goal is to reduce the amount of silt being deposited on the kelp ecosystems Off

the mouth of streams or rivers in or near the area impacted by the TenyoMam oil spill.

Accepted silt reduction projects would be above and beyond what is required by other

regulations and programs to reduce siltation into streams and rivers.

Potential project coordinators: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife

.

Project description: Section 1.2 describes impacts of the Tenyo Maru spill on the

federally threatened marbled murrelet population in Washington. According to the

Recovers Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997), the major factors contributing to

their threatened status include: (1) loss of nesting habitats, and (2) poor reproductive

success in the habitat that does remain. In the Pacific Northwest, marbled murrelets

forage almost exclusively in the near shore marine environment, but fly inland to nest in

mature

protect

coni

and

.fers. One component of this proposed restoration project is to permanen

improve marbled murrelet nesting habitats. Besides protecting marbled

tl y

murrelet nesting habitats, nesting success can be improved by protecting forest stands

adjacent to nesting habitats. The marbled murrelet recovery plan (USFWS 1997)

recommends decreasing habitat fragmentation by increasing the size of suitable forest

stands to provide a larger area of interior forest conditions as a long-term strategy.

recommends the protection of “recruitment habitats” to enlarge existing stands and

It also

buffer

occupied sites from predators and wind damage that can gradually degrade the stand.

Kelp was also documented to be injured by the Tenyo Mim oil spill. Surveys by the

Washington Department of Natural Resources have shown losses of Macrocystis and

Nereocystis beds off the mouths of some northwest Olympic Peninsula rivers in recent

years (Van Wagenen 1989-1997; Van Wagenen 1995). Siltation can cause a decrease in

kelp populations by: (1) increasing turbidity, therefore decreasing the photic zone; (2)

covering otherwise suitable substrates with a layer of fine silt preventing recruitment of

microscopic phases of gametophytes or sporophytes; (3) covering boulders or bedrock

with finer substrates such as sand or gravel; or (4) smothering of either gametophytes or

sporophytes (Dean and Devsher 1983; Devinny and Volse 1978; Schiel and Foster 1992;

Shaffer and parks 1994). The second component of this proposed restoration project

involves sediment management projects for selected watersheds to reduce undesired

siltation flows through, and deposition in, potential kelp habitat sites in the adjacent near

shore areas.

Proposed activities: Fee title acquisition, easements, and other available conservation

3-14
Draft of January 20,1999

measures would be used to secure protection in perpetuity for known occupied marbled

murrelet nesting habitat and/or nesting habitat buffer areas. Priority would be given to

property that maximizes the acreage protected with available dollars. Stands of mature

hemlock with mistletoe would provide marbled murrelet nesting habitats, but would be of

lower timber value, thereby reducing the cost. Criteria to be used for the selection of

buffer areas are: (1) the buffer area would be adjacent to a forest stand occupied by

marbled murrelets; (2) the occupied stand is in protected status from timber harvest; (3)

the land is available to be acquired through fee title purchase, an easement, or other

conservation measure. Buffer areas could be managed to enhance the expansion of

nesting habitats through forest manipulations. Even age stands could be manipulated to

accelerate late successional structures. It is possible that direct tree manipulations could

be conducted to increase nesting platforms. Protection of marbled murrelet habitats that

reduces the impact of siltation into river systems, as well as protecting nesting areas, will

be prioritized. The Trustee Committee has not selected marbled murrelet nesting habitat

protection project sites at this time. They would be identified through working with

agencies and organizations interested in protecting nesting sites. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service would be consulted regarding activities underway with the Forest

Recovery Plan.

The kelp component of this project is multi-phased. Phase I would identify and prioritize

major sources of erosion that produce excessive silt. Local government agencies, tribes,

private conservation organizations and landowners will be contacted for input. Phase II

will involve implementing projects. Only projects that are not already required by

regulation or other programs will be pursued. Projects may include, but are not limited

to, repairing failing roads, correcting small slides, placing large organic debris for bank

protection, and buying or securing conservation easements for riparian buffer zones. The

project coordinator(s) will pursue additional funds from other sources to complete any

large projects that are approved. All funds must be available before the project can begin.

Habitats and projects where cost-sharing is available would have highest priority for both

marbled murrelet habitat and siltation reduction components of the project.

Benefits: The Trustee Committee emphasizes that habitat protection is one of the most

important activities that can be conducted under this alternative. Because land

development or certain management methods may alter habitats so injured resources are

negatively affected, the protection or enhancement of these habitats may reduce the

potential for further injury, and by that allow recovery to continue for marbled murrelet

and kelp with little interference.

Environmental consequences: The protection, acquisition, and enhancement of fish and

wildlife habitats have been relatively successful in restoring or maintaining fish and

wildlife populations. In fact, the enhancement of coastal habitats and the resulting

improvement to various ecosystem functions has been the primary method for conducting

coastal aquatic restoration over the past 15 years (Simenstad and Thorn 1992). The

protection of habitats also would reduce the probability that these habitats would become

3-15
Draft of January 20,1999

fragmented. Fragmented forests are cited as a major reason for the decline of the marbled

murrelet (USFWS 1997).

Decreasing siltation in rivers and streams could, in turn, decrease the sediment load into

the marine environment from the watersheds. Besides a possible increase of kelp beds

near the targeted watersheds, habitat for salmonid species and forage fish could be

enhanced. An enhanced kelp community offers more forage habitats for salmonids and

other forage fish, urchins, and subsequently sea otters and seabirds. Potentially negative

impacts that may result from kelp restoration conducted under this alternative would be

the redistribution of sediment and soil materials and a change in the processes that affect

erosion and deposition. These would be slight short-term impacts that include a

temporary increase in sedimentation during construction which would be mitigated with

timing restrictions, silt fences, etc. The Trustee Committee does not anticipate these

potentially adverse effects to have long-term significance. However, project-specific

impacts will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, one disadvantage of this

alternative is that it may take many years before the injured populations respond to the

improvements to their habitats.

The Trustee Committee assumes that this project will result in an overall benefit to the

entire suite of injured resources, with relatively few negative impacts.

Project goal monitoring: Marbled murrelet nesting habitat occupancy surveys would

need to be conducted minimally for two years at five year intervals to monitor site

occupancy (4 years of monitoring over a lo-year period). Buffer areas should, at the

minimum, maintain occupied sites where appropriate habitats would have diminished

without the buffer protection, and may improve conditions for occupied sites and serve as

habitat expansion areas in the future. Monitoring will be included in the projects and an

annual report will be provided to the Trustee,Committee for their review and approval.

3.2.4 Alternative D: An Integrative Restoration Approach

Alternatives A, B and C, can be integrated in a way that increases their effectiveness if they are

applied simultaneously. Furthermore, because each of these alternatives attempt to increase

populations by affecting specific population parameters, they are not independent.

Individuals within populations are affected by both the biological and physical environment. As

such, the recovery of a population following events such as oil spills depends on both physical

and biological factors. Because these factors operate at varying temporal and spatial scales, their

relative effects are often difficult to identify. Furthermore, human activities contribute to both

the physical and biological environment of populations further complicating our ability to

identify any single factor that regulates or affects, independent of other factors, the growth of a

population. The most effective restoration of populations affected by oil spills may require an

integrated approach. This integrated approach would use all available techniques that promise

predictable and testable results. Thus, this alternative proposes to combine actions described

3-16
Draft of January 20,1999

under Alternatives A, B and C, and to implement an integrated approach to seabird and kelp

restoration.

The environmental consequences of projects that may occur under this integrated approach

include the environmental consequences predicted under Alternatives A, B and C. No significant

impacts to threatened or endangered species are expected to result from the integrated approach.

If actions under this alternative are determined to have an adverse effect on the quality of the

human environment, the project would be redesigned, relocated, or possibly abandoned. This

alternative could indirectly benefit a variety of federally threatened and endangered species and

state listed sensitive species by providing nesting, feeding, resting, rearing and other forms of

habitats used during the lives of these species.

3-17
Draft of January 20,1999

4.0 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Trustee Committee has selected Alternative D-An Integrative Restoration Approach as the

preferred alternative for the TenyoiMaru restoration plan. The following section summarizes the

factors considered in this decision.

Alternative A: No Action/Natural Recovery

Restoration of the injured resources under the no-action alternative would occur only through

natural processes and existing or future programs that are unrelated to this restoration plan. This

alternative is the baseline against which other alternatives are compared. In order for the noaction alternative to be selected as a preferred restoration alternative, it must be more efficient

and effective in restoring the environment than projects that would be conducted under other

alternatives. The no-action alternative would not increase the rate of restoration of the injured

natural resources and habitats beyond what will result from natural processes and existing or

future programs.

This alternative recognizes the capacity of ecosystems to recover naturally and does not in any

way alter existing habitats. The principal advantages of this approach are that it permits the

natural recovery process to function uninhibited by human intervention and no monetary costs are

associated with it because natural processes determine the trajectory of the system.

The no-action alternative could adversely affect wildlife over the long-term because no action

would be taken to enhance or restore sensitive injured resources. Without some type of

enhancements, these species, and their habitats, may continue to decline. Threatened species,

such as the marbled murrelet, may never reach their pre-spill recovery potential without

additional protection and enhancement restoration activities.

OPA clearly establishes trustee responsibility to seek compensation for interim losses pending

recovery of the natural resources. This responsibility cannot be addressed through a no-action

alternative.

Although some natural recovery is expected, it is the Trustees’ opinion that direct intervention is

required to address potential acute and sub-lethal injuries to the natural resources resulting from

the spill. In addition, no benefits would be realized from the settlement to recover injured

resources and the obligations of the consent decree would not be met. For these reasons, the

Trustee Committee did not select the no-action alternative as an effective restoration option.

Alternative B: Population-Focused Restoration

The goal of this restoration alternative is to increase populations of seabird and kelp through

direct manipulations to population parameters. Actions taken under this alternative are designed

to increase the rate of immigration and potential breeding, decrease the age at which individuals

first attempt to breed, decrease disturbance at nesting colonies to potentially increase nesting

success, and increase the probability that an adult bird will survive and successfully breed during

any given year. As such, this alternative provides the mechanisms to reduce the mortality of

4-1
Draft of January 20, .1999

adult seabirds and for rapid colonization and restoration at localities where breeding does not

occur, or is severely depressed.

The environmental consequences associated with population manipulation restoration should ,be

minimal. Adverse impacts to wildlife could occur as there is some potential for actions that

benefit one group of species to have short-term impacts on other species. In addition, increased

interaction between predators and injured prey species may result. There would be no significant

effects on the quality of the human environment if these projects are implemented.

The Trustee Committee considers this a strong alternative for an effective restoration of injured

resources.

Alternative C: Habitat-Focused Restoration

The objective of this restoration alternative is to provide quality habitats such that natural

processes may result in the recovery of injured populations. Furthermore, quality habitats may

also provide the range of resources necessary to maintain food webs or other structural

components of ecosystems.

The permanent protection of habitats is a viable restoration tool that clearly offers not only the

potential for restoration of the resources injured by the Tenyo M&u oil spill, but also the potential

for comprehensive rehabilitation and protection, in perpetuity, of the ecosystems in which these

injured species are a part. The proposed projects listed under this alternative will potentially

increase the amount of protected nesting habitats available to marbled murrelets and improve

conditions for nesting at existing occupied stands, and decrease sedimentation in selected

watersheds to enhance kelp beds at the mouth of rivers.

Protection of nesting habitat and a decrease in nesting predation and occupied stand degradation

could help reduce the rate of decline of marbled murrelets in Washington. An enhanced kelp

community offers more forage habitats for salmonids, and other forage fish, urchins, and

subsequently sea otters and seabirds.

Permanent protection and alteration of existing habitats offer moderate to high potential for

benefitting injured resources. In addition, impacts from application are low to moderate. The

habitat-focused alternative has a high potential for reducing habitat fragmentation and would

directly benefit functions that support fish and wildlife resources. Improvement of habitat

functions has been the primary method of conducting coastal aquatic restoration over the past

fifteen years (Simenstand and Thorn 1992). There is a relatively long history documenting the

success of this type of action that has shown that fisheries and wildlife resources can benefit from

constructing and rehabilitating natural habitats. This alternative offers a growing level of

confidence to restore functioning habitats for injured resources.

Alternative D: An Integrative Restoration Amroach

The intent of the Trustee Committee is to provide a restoration plan that will restore populations

4-2
Draft of January 20,1999

injured by the Tenyo firu oil spill and balance activities so that the integrated structural

components of whole ecosystems (e.g., physical habitats, food webs) are preserved or enhanced.

This integrative approach to restoration combines the positive aspects of Alternatives A, B, and

C, and maintains the low level of negative environmental consequences assumed to be associated

with these alternatives. This will provide not only the greatest array of potential projects, but also

the greatest opportunity to integrate projects into comprehensive ecosystem-level restoration,

benefitting the greatest number of species.

This integrative approach to restoration is the only alternative in this restoration plan that fosters

comprehensive restoration of injured resources at both the population and ecosystem levels, and

by that, promotes the long-term sustainability of resources. It provides the greatest flexibility and

the most options for restoring, replacing, rehabilitating, and/or acquiring the equivalent of natural

resources injured as the result of the discharge of oil, and therefore, has been identified by the

Trustee Committee as the preferred alternative.

4.1 Proposed Project Schedules and Estimated Budgets

Restoration of Common Murre Colonies in Copalis National Wildlife Refuge, Washington

State

Schedule= Upon final approval of the project; a specific work plan for Phase I will be

generated by the project coordinator(s). Phase I will be completed within two years. If

Phase II is conducted, there will be an annual review of the project and the Trustee

Committee will discuss the progress and evaluate the relevance of continuing the project.

Estimated budget from Tenyo Maru Funds: $1,800,000

*Any unused finding will be redistributed to the Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and

River Silt Reduction Project (Section 3.3.1).

Oiled Wildlife Rehabilitation Center

Schedule: Upon final approval of the project, the Washington Wildlife Rescue Coalition

has three years to secure outside funds for the project. Any TenyuMaru dollars that are

not made available for the rehabilitation facilities will be redistributed to the Marbled

Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt Reduction Project (Section 3.3.1).

Estimated budget from Tenyo Maru Funds: $500,000

*If the State is unable to secure outside funding, the Tenyo Mar-u restoration contribution

of $500,000 will be redistributed to the Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River

Silt Reduction Project (Section 3 -3.1).

4-3
Draft of January 20,1999

Public Education Signs and Brochures

Schedule= Upon final approval of the project proposal, implementation must begin within

two years.

Estimated budget from Tenyo Maru Funds: $100,000

Seabird By-Catch Reduction in Coastal Set-Net Fisheries of Washington State

Schedule: Phase I - Frequency ranges will be determined 18 months to 2 years

following final approval of the project. At the end of Phase I an interim

report will be provided to the Trustee Committee for their review and

approval.

Phase II - Prototypes will be developed for in-laboratory and in-field

testing within 1 year to 18 months following the completion of Phase I of

the project.

Phase III - If this phase is approved by the Project Coordinator and Trustee

Committee, common murre responses will be quantified within 18 months

to 2 years following the completion of Phase I of the project.

Phase IV - The quantification results of seabird by-catch reduction and

impacts on catch of targeted fish species will be distributed in a report to

the Trustee Committee within 3 years following the completion of Phase

III.

Phase V - Depending on the results of the field trials (Phase IV) in

reducing seabird by-catch and on the impacts to targeted fish species,

recommendations for regulatory changes requiring pingers or ,other

relevant modifications and the purchase and distribution of pingers to the

fishery will be completed within two years of the completion of Phase IV.

A final report will be provided to the Trustee Committee.

Colonv monitoring - Quantification of murre population trends and

correlation of trends with, among other variables being monitored, the bycatch reduction project, may be conducted intermittently throughout the

project for 4-5 years. Annual reports will be provided to the Trustee

Committee for their review and approval. Since this monitoring

component is to be shared among other approved TenyuMaru restoration

projects, the monitoring schedule will be integrated with all applicable

projects.

Estimated budgetfrom Tenyo Maru Funds: $ 585,000 to $650,000.

Any unused funds remaining from overestimation of cost or cost savings from

shared monitoring or modifications (e.g., delete phase III) will be redirected to

Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt Reduction [Section 3.3. I].

4-4
Draft of Januarv 20,1999

Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt Reduction

Schedule: Suitable available marbled murrelet nesting habitat protection sites will be

selected within 2 years of the final approval of the project. In the interim, the Trustee

Committee will identify and consult with co-trustees and environmental organizations

who would be willing to assume title on any appropriate parcels or to guarantee their

conservation status and restricted uses. Permanent habitat protection (purchase, lease,

conservation easement, etc.) will be secured within 1 year of final approval of the site by

the Trustee Committee. Because of extenuating circumstances that may be associated

with securing properties, the Trustee Committee may choose to extend this schedule on a

case-by-case basis. If the time limits are exceeded, the funds earmarked for marbled

murrelet nesting habitat protection will be reallocated to other TenyoMaru projects

identified in the plan.

Phase 1 (feasibility phase) of the river silt reduction component will be completed within

6 months of the notice of the availability of a final restoration plan. Selected and

approved projects will have the appropriate permits in place and be ready to be

implemented under Phase II within 2 years of the completion of Phase I. If the time limits

are expired, the remaining funds will be reallocated to other Tenyo lMaru projects

identified in the plan.

Estimated budget from Tenyo Maru fundi

Project development, implementation, and monitoring - $2,500,000

(Break out costs: 6 mo. feasibility stud’y for the river silt reduction

component =$60,000; monitoring costs for marbled murrelet nesting

habitat protection = $10,000)

4-5
Draft of January 7,1999

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

To restore resources lost as a result of the oil spill, the Trustees examined a variety of restoration

alternatives. These included alternatives: (A) no action and natural recovery, (B) populationfocused restoration, (C) habitat-focused restoration, and (D) integrative restoration. The

integrative restoration approach was the preferred alternative selected by the Trustees. The Tenyo

Mum Trustees intend to avoid or reduce negative impacts to existing natural resources and

services to the greatest extent possible. However, the Trustees could undertake actions that may

have short or long term effects upon existing habitats or non-injured species. Project specific

environmental consequences for each alternative and associated projects are provided in Section

3. This section addresses the potential overall cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts, and other

factors to be considered in both the OPA and the NEPA regulations.

The Tenyo Mizru Trustees believe that the projects selected in this restoration program will not

cause significant negative impacts to natural resources or the services they provide. Further, the

Trustees do not believe the proposed projects will adversely affect the quality of the human

environment in ways deemed “significant.”

Cumulative Impacts: Since the proposed projects are primarily designed to restore degraded

habitats and improve recovery of injured natural resources, the cumulative environmental

consequences will primarily be beneficial. These cumulative impacts include long-term

restoration of the condition and functioning elements of the injured ecosystem by increasing the

number of individual seabirds that attempt to reproduce, the recruitment of seabird and kelp

populations, and the amount and condition of protected habitats. Both project and NEPA

monitoring of projects funded under the Tenyo Maru restoration fund will verify that cumulative

impacts will be beneficial rather than adverse. Any cumulative adverse effects on an area or

other area program, plan, or regulatory regime from a proposed project, will result in the project

being redesigned or abandoned.

Indirect Impacts: Environmental consequences would not be limited to the project location.

Indirect beneficial impacts would also occur throughout populations and habitats in Western

/ Washington and Oregon. Cumulative impacts at the project locations, and in the surrounding

area, are expected to increase populations of seabirds and kelp, provide improved habitats for a

r

I variety of fish and wildlife, and provide a greater understanding of human interaction with natural

/ resources. This alternative could indirectly benefit a variety of federally threatened and /

endangered species and Washington State listed sensitive species by providing nesting, feeding,

I resting, rearing and other forms of habitats utilized during the lives of these species. j

I

,1

I Direct I’mpacts: Providing improved habitats, improving the survivability of seabirds of all age I

classes, and enhancing natural seabird and kelp recruitment may aid in replenishing the resources , injured in the Tenyo Mm oil spill. The proposed restoration projects may increase the

survivability of seabirds and kelp not killed in the oil spill and will aid in replenishing the natural I

/, population by increasing productivity levels.

L

tI

I

/ 5-l
Draft of January 7,1999

Overall, this alternative should enhance water andsediment quality and the functionality of

ecosystems. However, some brief impacts from the proposed actions may include short-term

disturbances from noise and air pohtants from construction activities; short-term water and

sediment quality impacts; temporary disruption of animal migrations, breeding and nesting;

short-term disturbances of existing plant communities; and temporary disturbances of ecological

processes while the restored system reaches maturity.

It is the Trustees’ intention to keep construction categorized as very “minor.” The term of any

construction projects (e.g., sediment control activity, forest manipulation, and the posting of

signs) is anticipated to be very short, generally from two to four weeks and may qualify as a

categorical exclusion to NEPA under DO1 Department Manual 5 16 DM6, Appendix I, but will be

reviewed to ensure that both federal agencies under this settlement concur in the appropriate

environmental document.

Projects that involve short-term construction activities could generate noise from machinery and

equipment. If specific construction projects are to be conducted in “noise sensitive” areas, project

specific environmental assessments will be conducted and include the extent of any impact. The

proposed restoration projects could cause an increase in noise from resident and migrating birds,

which would be a potential long-term impact. As habitat is restored or improved, birds and other

wildlife should become more plentiful in the project area. However, the areas surrounding the

proposed projects areas are primarily water or wilderness areas. It is not anticipated that any

significant noise impacts would result from the projects proposed by the Trustee Committee.

Implementation of the proposed projects should result in no significant impact to water qua&-y.

Habitat modification activities in or next to streams or rivers, could have short-term water quality

impacts through temporary increases in sedimentation and turbidity. Any impacts resulting from

restoration construction activities will be mitigated by using techniques such as the use of

sediment curtains or other technologies designed to reduce sediment transport. Any construction

equipment would be monitored to ensure diesel, gas, or oils are not released into waters at or next

to the project site. The Committee believes that potential restoration activities would result in

insignificant effects to this resource.

No long-term adverse effects to sediment quality, soils, or geologic conditions are anticipated

under this restoration plan. The Trustee Committee does not anticipate any temporary or

permanent visual impacts from any of the proposed projects and none of the proposed restoration

actions should have an impact on energy consumption. No proposed projects would directly or

indirectly affect wetlandb orfkoodpluin areas. Furthermore, the TenyoMaru Trustees do not

believe any of the proposed restoration projects would have a significant impact on the coastal

zone, but specific projects in the coastal zone will undergo the appropriate coastal zone

consistency review requirements.

The project sites are wilderness areas, areas surrounded by water or areas under water.

Restoration work should not have any social or economic impacts upon the neighborhoods or

community cohesion for various groups from proposed projects. Property values should not be

5-2
Draft of January 7,1999

decreased, nor will there be any separation of the communities’ residents from community

facilities. Implementing Phase V of the Seabird By-catch Reduction in Coastal Net Fisheries of

Washington State (Section 3.2.2.4) could lead to minor adverse effects on commercial and

recreational fishing opportunities in the area. However, this project is designed to engineer and

carry out a strategy that has little or no impact on the net fishery so any adverse impact would be

minimal. Due to the nature and purpose of the Restoration Plan, there are no anticipated human

relocation issues.

General land use patterns and aesthetic qualities should not be adversely affected under the

preferred alternative for the following reasons. Open space and recreational uses are scattered

throughout the study area and forested areas. Land ownership may be affected if direct land

purchase is required, however this should not affect the overall balance of ownership patterns

within the study areas. Land management practices will not be affected since the pertinent local

plans and ordinances, and state planning regulations, encourages the preservation and restoration

of the area’s vital natural resources.

Public access to natural resources could be affected. The proposed public education project

includes interpretive signs that should make the public more aware of the environment that they

are viewing. Subsequently, this could draw more frequent human visitors, however, the number is

anticipated to be insignificant. The signs are intended to educate those present, to increase

awareness, and not to attract. It is the intent of the Trustees to balance the goals of public access

and habitat restoration whenever possible. Recreation and tourism will not be negatively affected

by the proposed projects, however, the public may be more educated on how to avoid impacts to

seabirds while recreating or touring on or near islands that support seabird colonies.

Specific restoration sites and their perceived potential impact upon water-oriented commerce

would be addressed on a site-by-site basis, as would be their eligibility for the National Historic

Register of Historic Places. Since all site-specific projects would be designed to identify historic

properties, potential effects on tribal treaties and archaeologicalpreservation and mitigate for

any potential impacts, it is not anticipated that historic properties would be affected under any of

the proposed actions. Information on prime and unique agricultural lands will be solicited from

the United States Department of Agriculture upon selection of specific TenyoMaru restoration

sites.

No significant negative impacts to threatened or endangered species are expected to result from

the integrated approach. If actions under this alternative are determined to adversely affect

federal or state-listed species, the project would be redesigned, relocated or abandoned. The

chance of any Tenyo Mmu restoration project having a negative impact onfish and wildlife is

insignificant, limited only to the duration of construction activities. The anticipated overall

environmental effect on fish and wildlife is to restore and maintain species diversity and

abundance in Washington and Oregon.

5-3
Draft of January 20,1999

6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

Antrim, L.D., R.M. Thorn, W. W. Gardiner, V.I. Cullinan, D.K. Shreffler, and R.W. Bienert.

1995. Effects of petroleum, products on bull kelp (Nereocystis Zuetkzxmna). Shrine Biology

122:23-3 1.

Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. 1992. Experimental evaluations of the effects of oil on

benthic marine vegetation of Washington State.

Beissinger, S.R. 1995. Population trends of the marbled murrelet projected from demographic

analyses. Pg. 385-394 in C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (ed). Ecology

and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA.

Bowlby, C. E., B. L. Troutman, et al. 1988. Sea otters in Washington: Distribution,

abundance and activity patterns. National Coastal Research Institute, Newport Oregon.

Dean, T.A. and L.E. Devsher. 1983. The effects of suspended solids and thermal discharges on

kelp, pp. 114-135. In W. Bascom (ed.), the effects of waste disposal on kelp communities_

South. Calif. Coastal Water Res. Proj., Long Beach.

Devinny, J.S. and L.A. Volse. 1978. Effects of sediments on the development of Macrocystis

pyrifera gametophytes. Marine Biology 48:343-348.

Duggins, D. 0. 1988. The effects of kelp forests on nearshore environments: biomass, detritus,

and altered flow, in G.R. VanBlaricom and J.A. Estes (eds.) The communitv ecolo-ofsea

otters. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

Emery, K. 0. and R. H. Tschudy. 1941. Transportation of rock by kelp. Bull. Geological

Society of America 52: 855-862.

Ford, R-G., M.L. Bonnell, D.H. Varoujean, G.W. Page, H-R. Carter, B.E. Sharp, D. Heinemann,

and J.L. Casey. 1996. Total direct mortality of seabirds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Pg.

684-711 in S.D. Rice, R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright (ed). Proceedings of the

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium_ Am. Fisheries Sot. No. 18.

Jameson R.J. 1997. Unpublished data. Biological Resources Division, Corvallis, OR.

Leaman, B. M. 1976. The association between the black rockfish (Sebastes melanops Girard)

and the beds of the giant kelp (Ahcrocystis integrzjidia Bory) in Barkeley Sound, British

Columbia. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Lowe, R.W. and D.S. Pitkin. 1996. Replicate Aerial Photographic Censuses of Oregon Common

Murre Colonies 1995. Final report submitted to the Tenyo Manx Trustee Committee.

Melvin, E-F., Conquest, L-L, and Parrish, J.K. 1997. Seabird Bycatch Reduction: New Tools for

Puget Sound Drift Gillnet Salmon Fisheries. Washington Sea Grant Program, University of

Washington, Seattle, WA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary. Final environmental impact statement/management plan. Vol. I & II.

Page, G-W., H.R. Carter, and R.G. Ford. 1990. Numbers of seabirds killed or debilitated in the

1986 Apex Houston oil spill in central California. Studies in Avian Biology 14: 164-174.

Parrish, J.K. 1995. The influence of group size and habitat type on reproductive success in

Common Murres (Uris aalge). Auk 112: 3 90-40 1.

Parrish, J.K. 1996. Continued monitoring of Common Murres on Tatoosh Island. Final Report

1995. Report submitted to the Tenyo Mar-u Trustee Committee_

Parrish, J.K. 1997. Attendance and Reproductive Success of Tatoosh Island Common Murres.

6-l
Draft of January 20,1999

Final Report 1996. Report submitted to the Tenyo Mar-u Trustee Committee.

Schiel, D.R. and M.S. Foster. 1992. Restsoring kelp forests. Pages 279-342 in G.W. Thayer

(ed.) Restoring the nation’s environment. Maryland Sea Grant.

Shaffer, J.A. and D.S. Parks. 1994. Seasonal variations in and observations of landslide impacts

on the algal composition of a Puget Sound nearshore kelp forest. Botanical Marina 37:3 15

323.

Simenstad, C.A. and R.M. Thorn. 1992. Restoring wetland habitats in urbanized Pacific

Northwest estuaries. In: Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment (G. Thayer, ed.),

pp. 423-472. Maryland Sea Grant College.

Speich, S.M. and T.R. Wahl. 1989. Catalog of Washington Seabird Colonies. US Fish Wildl.

Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(6).

Speich, S.M. and T.R. Wahl. 1995. Marbled murrelet populations of Washington -- marine

habitat preferences and variability of occurrence. Pg. 3 13-326 in C. J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt,

M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (ed). Ecology and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Pacific

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA.

Tenyo Mar-u Trustees. 1993. Tenyo Maru Oil spill habitat impacts, resource injuries, damage

claims and restoration summaries. Lacey, WA.

Takekawa, J.E., H.R. Carter, and T.E. Harvey. 1990. Decline of the Common Murre in central

California, 1980-1986. Studies Avian Biol. 14: 149-163.

Thorn, R. M. 1989. Plant standing stock and productivity on tidal flats in Padilla Bay,

Washington: A temperate North Pacific estuarine embayment., FRI, University of

Washington.

Thompson, C.W. 1996. Distribution and abundance of marbled murrelets and common murres in

relation to marine habitat on the outer coast of Washington - An interim report to the Tenyo

A&w Trustee Council.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Final Restoration Plan for Seabirds Injured by the Apex

Houston Oil Spill. Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Nestucca Oil Spill Restoration Plan. Lacey, WA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus

marmoratus) (Washington, Oregon and California Population). Portland, OR.

Van Wagenen, R.F. 1989-1992, 1994, 1996-1997. Washington coastal kelp resources. Annual

kelp inventory final reports to Washington Dept. Natural Resources, Aquatic Lands Division.

Van Wagenen, R.F. 1995. Washington coastal kelp resources, Port Townsend to the Columbia

River. Final report to Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

Vermeer, K., S.G. Sealy, and G.A. Sanger. 1987. Feeding ecology of the Alcidae in the eastern

north Pacific Ocean. Pg. 189-227 in J.P. Croxall (ed). Seabirds: feeding ecology and role in

marine ecosystems. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Warheit, K. I. 1996. Assessment of the origin of and the demographic impact to Common

Murres (Uris adge) killed during the 1991 Tenyo Mar-u Oil Spill. Final Report submitted to

USFWS. Document Control No. 98210-93-376.

Wheeler, W. N. 1990. Kelp forests of British Columbia, a unique resource. Province of British

Columbia, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Aquaculture and Commercial Fisheries

Branch. 91 pp.

Wheeler, W. N. and L. D. Druehl. 1986. Seasonal growth and production of Mbcrocystis

integrzjdia on British Columbia, Canada. Mar. Biol. 90: 181-l 86.

6-2
Draft of January 20,1999

Wheeler, W. N. (ed.) 1990. Federal-Provincial Marine Plant Working Group Workshop

on Kelp Biology and Kelp-Fish Interactions. ProCeedings of a workshop. Victoria, B.C.

February 15-16, 1990. 140 pp.

Wilson,K. And R. McPeak. 1983. Kelp restoration, pp. 199-216. In W. Bascom (ed.), The

effects of waste disposal on kelp communities. South. Calif. Coastal Water Res. Proj., Long

Beach.

Wilson, U.W. 1995. Washington Common Murre colony surveys 1995. Final report submitted to

the Tenyo Maru Trustee Committee.

Wilson, U.W. 1996. Tenyo Maru Pilot Project Proposal. Proposal submitted to Tenyo lMaru

Trustee Committee.

Wilson, U.W. 1997. Washington Common Murre colony surveys 1995. Final report submitted

to the Tenyo Maru Trustee Committee.

Wilson, U.W. 1998. Personal communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington

Coastal Refuges. Sequim, WA.

6-3
Appendix A: Summary of public comments

Draft of January 20,1999

The following issues, concerns and suggestions were presented at the informal Tenyo Maru

Trustee Committee’s workshops held in Port Angeles on November 14, 1995 and in Seattle on

November 16, 1995. Comments are summarized below and are categorized according to subject.

A response is provided.

Participants in the Restoration Plannine Process

Comments:

l Why is a meeting being held in Seattle? Why are people outside the Olympic Peninsula

involved?

0 Why does Seattle have any interest in how money is spent?

0 Clallam County is a charter county with citizen control of its money, projects and plans.

Clallam County people should be in on how money is spent.

Why are there no Clallam County representatives on the TenyoMaru Trustee Committee?

Response:

Natural resources injured in the Tenyo Maru spill are national and state public resources.

Review and comment on the draft and final programmatic restoration plan is open to all

interested persons. Natural resource trustees are defined under NRDA regulations as those

officials of the federal and state governments, of Indian tribes, and of foreign governments,

designated under 33 U.S.C. 2706(b)of OPA. The Tenyo Miiu consent decree and MOU

identifies the specific applicable state, federal, and Tribal Trustee Committee members

responsible for the restoration implementation for the TenyoMaru oil spill. Information on

public involvement in the process is presented in Section 1.5 Public Involvement and Plan

Implementation.

Consent Decree

Comments:

. Woul

a

l

.d like to see copies of the consent decree

Why is the Consent Decree/scoping document bound to just seabirds and kelp?

Resources recover on their own. How was liable party able to determine how consent

decree money to be spent?

A-l
Draft of Januarv 20,1999

Response:

Copies of the Tenyo lMavu consent decree and MOA are available upon request from the

Trustee Committee. The consent decree is a signed legal document that designates the

expenditure of the funds. Prior to settlement of the spill, injuries to natural resources

were documented and the information was provided to the parties responsible for the spill.

Seabirds and kelp were the primary documented injuries. The spill was settled under the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Acceptance criteria to determine injury is defined under DO1

regulations in 43 CFR Subtitle A, Part 11.

Public Notification

Comment:

l How was the public notified regarding information concerning the consent decree? Local

radio does not have enough range to broadcast to everyone in the county.

Response:

The Consent Decree was a settlement negotiated between the responsible parties, the United

States of America, the State of Washington, and the Makah Indian Tribe. The public was

notified through a Federal Register notice of the pending consent decree before it was entered

into the court.

Changing the Consent Decree

Comment:

l Can the Federal Court be petitioned to allow consent decree funds to be spent on other

projects such fisheries? Can the judgment be revisited so it can be changed? What would

it take?

Response:

The Consent Decree was made available to the public through a Federal Register notice of a

30-day comment period. This was the public’s opportunity to review and comment on the

settlement agreement.

Return Money

Comment:

l Why not study to find impacts of the spill. If no impact can be found, give the money

back.

Response:

A-2
Give Money to Tribes

Comment

l Give a portion of the consent decree money to the Makah Tribe, a portion to the

Quillayute Tribe and earmark the rest for fisheries.

Response:

The Makah Tribe is a member of the Trustee Committee and a participant in the settlement.

Therefore, they are a party in determining how the settlement dollars will be used in restoring

the injured resources from the spill. The Quillayute Tribe has had an opportunity to

participate through the DO1 Bureau of Indian AfYairs and may offer input during the public

comment period.

Restoration Fund Dollars and Management

Comments:

l Save

l

0

0

0

fund money and spend the interest and not the principal.

A sustainable fund should be set up for ongoing projects, research, studies and restoration.

Need to determine way to resupply funds so consent decree money won’t be totally

consumed.

HOW much money is available from interest on $5.2 million restoration fund?

Is $5.2 million a “generous” amount?

Response:

The $5.2 million restoration fund is generating interest in a court registry account.

Depending on plans for expending funds in the near future, the restoration dollars can be

managed in different interest-bearing accounts that will determine the amount of earned

interest. Restoration funds can be managed over the long-term to insure the success of

restoration projects. The settlement amount was deemed appropriate for restoring injured

natural resources by all parties at the time of settlement.

Leneth of Time

A-3
Draft of January 20,1999

Comment:

l Why has this project taken so long? The spill occurred in 1991 - what’s been going on since

then?

Response:

Negotiating natural resource damage settlements and subsequent restoration actions can often be

time intensive and a complicated process. The process to develop the Terzyo Maru restoration

plan involved the assessment of injures, negotiations for settlement, developing a scoping

document for public review and comment, conducting pilot projects to determine the most

effective restoration strategies, and developing and writing a restoration plan.

Oil on the Vessel

Comments:

l The absolute volume of oil contained in the TenyoMaru is known. Why is there a

discrepancy between volume on the vessel and the amount reportedly spilled?

l The guilty party should be responsible for getting oil out of the sunken vessel to avoid more

spills.

Responses:

Only part of the oil on the vessel was spilled upon impact. Oil continued to leak from the

vessel for more than a month following the spill and measuring the total amount of oil

released from the vessel was not possible. The vessel sank in 90 fathoms of water and

continued to roll, presenting hazardous conditions for investigating the vessel.

I&red Resources Addressed

Comments:

What was the impact of the spill on area sea otters?

What were the bird species collected as result of the spill? Were any fisheries closed as

result of the spill?

How much effect did the oil have on bait fish/salmon and other species that dwell in the

kelp beds?

Have any other resources besides seabirds and kelp been identified as being damaged?

What theories have been applied to assess damages from the spill?

Were there studies to determine area resources pre spill vs. post spill?

A-4
* Draft of Januarv 20,1999

l What about studies/injuries to anadromous fish? (e.g., cutthroat, smelt, candlefish,

salmon, etc.)

l How were fisheries resources impacted by the spill?

l How has the definition of “injury” been applied? How were injuries documented? What

has been the criterion for determining injuries?

Response:

Information on injuries to natural resources is presented in Section 1.2 Fish and Wildlife

Resources and Natural Resource Injury of the draft programmatic restoration plan. NRDA

regulations dictate that the trustees use settlement dollars to restore natural resources injured

from the release of oil or hazardous substances. Acceptance criteria to determine injury is

defined under DOC regulations in 15 CFR Part 990 and DO1 regulations in 43 CFR Subtitle

&Part 11.

Iniuries to Urchins

Comments:

l What were effects of the spill on predators of kelp, such as sea urchins? How closely are

urchin fisheries monitored to determine population and/or damages?

Response:

The effect of the spill on sea urchins was not investigated. Urchin fisheries are monitored as

a commercial fishery..

Kelp

Comments:

l Were there aerial photos taken before/after of area kelp beds? How did oil impact kelp?

Response: Information on injuries to kelp is addressed in Section 1.2 Fish and Wildlife

Resources and Natural Resource Injury, of the restoration plan.

Restoration of Fish

Comments:

l Impacts on fish are a given. Will spill impacts on fisheries be addressed?

l Aerial extent of the spill was broad. Fish eggs had to have been affected/injured.

Response:

A-5
Draft of January 20,1999

NRDA regulations dictate that the Trustees use settlement dollars to restore natural resources

injured from the release of oil or hazardous substances. Acceptance criteria to determine

injury is defined under DOC regulation in CFR 15 Part 990 and DOI regulations in 43 CFR

Subtitle A, Part 11. Spill-related natural resource injures were documented primarily for

marine birds, and secondarily for kelp. Injuries to fish, shellfish, and the fisheries resource,

were not documented as part of the damage assessment process. Therefore, fish restoration

is not directly addressed in this restoration plan, however, many of the projects proposed will

have indirect benefit to the fishery resource. Information on injuries to natural resources is

presented in Section 1.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources and Natural Resource Injury of the draft

restoration plan.

Natural Restoration

Comments:

l Ithas been four years since the spill. To what extent has natural restoration occurred?

l What has been done regarding studies/monitoring of resources and wildlife species during

the last four years since the spill? Have they been recovering without assistance? How

much has been spent on these studies to date?

Response:

Some of the interest generated from the Tenyo lMaru restoration fund (a total of $200,840.35

to date) was used to conduct pilot projects necessary to collect data that would be irretrievably

lost and was necessary for the preparation of an efficient and successful restoration plan.

These pilot projects included: (1) aerial surveys of common murre colonies in Washington

and Oregon, (2) Common mume productivity and reproductive success on Tatoosh Island, (3)

Seabird-prey base study, (4) at-sea distribution assessment of common murres and marbled

murrelets, (5) aerial surveys of kelp distribution, and (6) and population genetics analyses of

common murre colonies in Washington and Oregon.

Impacts of Cleanup/Restoration

Comments:

0 Could cleanup/restoration cause more harm than the spill?

Response:

Cleanup from oil spills can cause harm to the environment, however, hazardous cleanup

procedures were not implemented following the Tenyo Mat-u oil spill. The goal of a

restoration plan is to provide benefits to injured natural resources.

A-6
Draft of January 20,1999

Studies Versus Restoration

Comments:

Can money be used for research?

How much should be spent on restoration?

Money in trust could be squandered on studies

should be on healing environmental food web.

and not on real restoration. The goal

0 Get productive, start restoration projects now.

The usefulness of studies is questionable.

Studies should be aimed at practical needs.

l Confusion exists - can decree moneys be used for

sponsored by state/federal government?

studi es going on already? Do they all

have to be

0 Can money be used to beef up current studies or projects?

Response:

NRDA regulations dictate that the trustees use settlement dollars to restore natural resources

injured from the release of oil or hazardous substances and that the successes of restoration

projects be monitored to document restoration of injured natural resources. All projects

proposed in the TenyuMtaru Draft Environmental Assessment and Restoration Plan have the

goal of restoring injured natural resources. Chapter 1 provides information on the legal

guidance for expenditure of restoration funds.

Restoration Plan Proiect Proposals

Comments:

l What are the big “wish list” ideas' for restoration projects?

0 What ideas have been brought forth already?

l What are the categories for the distribution of funds?

What are the bird species being targeted?

0 Keep political agendas out of studies. We remember the spotted owl studies.

0 Are juvenile fish the only focus as a food source for seabirds?

0 Money should be spent on restoring specific and/or selected watersheds.

0 Focus on restoring the kelp bed at the mouth of the Quillayute River.

A-7
Draft of January 20,1999

0

0

a

Give part of the money to the Snyder Creek enhancement program on Soleduck River.

Can Consent Decree funds be used for restoring and/or cleaning up environmental niches?

Is there any thought for the money to be spent on environmental education? A good

project would be to document the historical background of lessons learned from the spill.

l One possible restoration project is to study the relationship between human impacts on

bait fish and seabird populations.

0

a

Can money be used to study effects of hazardous materials/chronic pollution on seabird

populations?

Response:

Create artificial crevices for seabird nesting, such as Tatoosh Island.

The TenyoMaru Trustee Committee has selected a preferred alternative that includes several

individual restoration project proposals. They are described in Section 3 .O.

Land Purchases

Comments:

0

Are any inventories being done regarding possible land parcels for purchase?

Trustees should work through the state Department of Natural Resources’ Habitat

Conservation Program process to save money and encourage better integration of

restoration.

Purchase easements.

What type of land would be purchased? Private, public and/or tribal?

Restoration as a science is in its infancy. Trustees should invest in conservative measures

and purchasing land may be better than other measures.

Cancel idea of land purchase.

Response:

Restoration dollars cannot be expended before the draft restoration plan has been approved.

Therefore, a formal identification of available land has not been initiated. Any available land

would be considered that meets acquisition/protection criteria.

A-8
Gillnet Modifications

Draft of Januarv 20,1999

Comment:

l What is meant by gillnet modification and its relation to tribal fishing rights?

l Weren’t more murres killed in the net fisheries every year than perished in the spill?

Response:

Section 3.2.4 describes a restoration project proposal that intends to reduce seabird by-catch

in coastal net fisheries.

Spill Prevention

Comments:

a

0

Money should be spent on spill/pollution prevention. What about issues such as

recovery/treatment center studies, where are we now?

Spend the money on preventing the cause of the Tenyo Ahru spill.

What is restoration? Restoration definition is too narrow. Focus on preventive measures.

Use money around marinas to reduce/prevent pollution. Get away from argument about

certain resources.

You can only study something so long. Spend money on something productive. Spend

money on facilities.

Can radar system improvements be funded by consent decree money?

Spend money on vessel pilots.

Use money to form quick spill response teams similar to the National Guard. Make sure it

is composed of local residents.

Put money in trust for future spills.

Resort owners should get the money.

Spend money on tideland protection in case of future spills.

Selling prevention projects to liable parties could be difficult. Sell liable parties on the

idea that preventive measures are used for restoring community confidence.

Spend money on developing a rapid response team at Neah Bay to respond to oil spills.

A-9
Draft of Januarv 20,1999

l Use part of money to maintain response equipment in area (Neah Bay).

l Has any money been earmarked for prevention?

l Reduce human impacts -money should go to resorts in area for pollution prevention.

l Put $2 million into Clallam County treasury and let the county determine how the money

is spent.

l One project could be to do research regarding saving rescued birds. Many die even when

they are rescued. Can the survival rate be increased?

Response:

NRDA regulations dictate that the trustees use settlement dollars to restore natural resources

injured from the release of oil or hazardous substances. Section 3.2.2 describes a restoration

project proposal that improves oiled wildlife rehabilitation in Western Washington.

Matchine Dollars

Comments:

l Aren’t we being cheated if the $5.2 million is spent only on seabirds/kelp? We should use

the money to leverage matching dollars from other federal/state agencies to increase the

fund.

Responses:

NRDA regulations dictate that the trustees use settlement dollars to restore natural resources

injured from the release of oil or hazardous substances. Consequently the Tenyo Mum Draft

Environmental Assessment and Restoration Plan addresses the restoration of injured natural

resourties. As identified in Section 3 of the draft Plan, many restoration project proposals in

this Plan pursue matching dollars from other sources to conduct the project.

? Completion of Restoration Projects

Comments:

l How will we know when restoration is complete?

Response:

Project goal monitoring is provided for each individual project proposal discussed in Section

3. Section 6 describes the overall process of measuring the success of the restoration plan.

A-10
Restoration Proiect Implementation

Draft of January 20,1999

Comments:

l Schedule a follow-up meeting when the trustees are ready to introduce a request for

proposal (RFP) for projects.

l Who does peer review?

l What is the time line for submitting proposals? What is the process?

l Who would be lead agency for letting restoration projects? Who has ultimate

responsibility? Which agency oversees contract administration?

Response:

Restoration project proposals are provided in Section 3 of this draft Plan for public review and

comment.

Other Oil Spills

Comments:

l What has been going on with other counties impacted by oil? Have other meetings been

scheduled to get their input?

l What was learned from Exxon Vuldez spill?

l How does Tenyo Maru settlement relate to 1988 Nestucca settlement for restoration

projects? Was a seabird baseline/population developed?

Response:

The Trustees have consulted with biologists designing and carrying out restoration plans for

other oil and hazardous spills. Information learned from the Exxon Vuldez (Alaska) and the

Apex Houston (California) spills have been of particular interest since they are involved with

seabird restoration. The gillnet modification portion of the Nestucca settlement has been

completed. Information learned from that study was used in designing the Tenyo Miiu

project proposal discussed in Section 3.2.4. The public education project proposal discussed

in Section 3.2.3 expands on the educational component of the Nestucca Restoration Plan

Developing a seabird population baseline was not funded as a Nestucca activity.

Common Murre and other Seabird Biology

Comments:

A-11
Draft of Januarv 20,1999

l What do murres/marbled murrelets eat? Do they predate on juvenile steelhead and other

fish? If you increase the number of juvenile steelhead in the area, the food supply for

seabirds will also increase.

l Where was baseline data obtained? How were trends determined regarding seabirds?

l What are the major predators on common murres?

l What major predators of seabird eggs and chicks?

l Are murres breeding now on Tatoosh Island?

l Were murres finished breeding when spill occurred? Were they nesting?

Responses:

Information and references on marine birds are discussed in Section 3.2.1 of the draft

restoration plan.

Predator/Pest Control

Comments:

l What is meant by nonnative pest removal?

l Do seals/sea lions count as “predators?”

l What is meant by “predator pest management?”

Responses:

Nonnative predator/pest removal would be removing exotic (introduced to the area by humans)

species from a location to help a native species restore. An example would be the removal of

introduced, non-native foxes from a seabird nesting island and eliminate their preying upon

seabirds.

Activities on Tatoosh Island

Comments:

l What are the current human activities on Tatoosh Island?

l Keep U.S. Coast Guard helicopters off Tatoosh Island.

Response:

Tatoosh Island is part of the Makah Tribal Lands. All access to the islands is regulated by the

Makah Tribe. The restoration project proposal discussed in Section 3.2.3 addresses

A-12
Draft of Januarv 20,1999

disturbance issues from human activities and aircraft on Tatoosh Island and for coastal

National Wildlife Refuge Islands in Oregon. Disturbances of coastal National Wildlife Refuge

islands in Washington are addressed in the Nestucca Restoration Plan.

Makah Cultural Resources Settlement

Comments:

l What were the cultural damages to the Makah Tribe and how much

Response:

The Makah Tribe is a co-trustee for the Tenyo Man NRDA and restoration.

A-13

received?
Draft of January 7,1999

Appendix B: Coordination with Other Programs, Plans, and Regulatory Authorities

B.l Overview

Two major federal laws guiding the restoration of the injured natural resources and services from

the Tenyo Mar-u oil spill are OPA and NEPA. OPA and its regulations provide the basic

framework for natural resource damage assessment and restoration. NEPA sets forth a specific

process of impact analysis and public review. In addition, the Trustees must comply with other

applicable laws, regulations and policies at the federal, state and local levels. The potentially

relevant laws, regulations and policies are set forth below.

In addition to laws and regulations, the Trustees must consider relevant environment or economic

programs or plans that are ongoing or planned in or near the affected environment. The Trustees

must ensure that their proposed restoration activities neither impede nor duplicate such programs

or plans. By coordinating restoration with other relevant programs and plans, the Trustees can

enhance the overall effort to improve the environment.

B.2 Key Statutes, Regulations and Policies

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPAL 33 U.S.C. Sg 2701, et sea.: 15 CFR Part 990

OPA establishes a liability regime for oil spills which injure or are likely to injure natural resources

and/or the services that those resources provide to the ecosystem or humans. Federal and state

agencies and Indian tribes act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess the injuries, scale

restoration to compensate for those injuries and implement restoration_ Section 1006(e)( 1) of

OPA (33 U. S.C. 5 2706 (e)( 1)) requires the President, acting through the Under Secretary of

Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, (NOAA) to promulgate regulations for the assessment of

natural resource damages resulting from a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil.

Assessments are intended to provide the basis for restoring, replacing, rehabilitating, and acquiring

the equivalent of injured natural resources and services.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)m 4321, et seq. 40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508

Congress enacted NEPA in 1969 to establish a national policy for the protection of the

environment. NEPA applies to federal agency actions that affect the human environment. NEPA

established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to advise the President and to carry out

certain other responsibilities relating to implementation of NEPA by federal agencies. Pursuant to

Presidential Executive Order, federal agencies are obligated to comply with the NEPA regulations

adopted by the CEQ. These regulations outline the responsibilities of federal agencies under

NEPA and provide specific procedures for preparing environmental documentation to comply with

NEPA. NEPA requires that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be prepared in order to determine

whether the proposed restoration actions will have a significant effect on the quality of the human

environment.

Generally, when it is uncertain whether an action will have a significant effect, federal agencies will

begin the NEPA planning process by preparing an EA. The EA may undergo a public review and

comment period. Federal agencies may then review the comments and make a determination.

B-l
Draft of January 7,1999

Depending on whether an impact is considered significant, an environmental impact statement

(EIS) or a finding of no significance (FONSI) will be issued.

The Trustees have integrated this restoration plan with the NEPA process to comply with those

requirements. This integrated process allows the Trustees to meet the public involvement

requirements of OPA and NEPA concurrently. This DRP/EA is intended to accomplish partial

NEPA compliance by:

0 summarizing the current environmental setting;

l describing the purpose and need for restoration action;

0 identifying alternative actions;

0 assessing the preferred actions’ environmental consequences; and,

0 summarizing opportunities for public participation in the decision process.

Project-specific NEPA

not already analyzed in

documents will need to be prepared for those

an environment assessment or environmental

proposed restoration

impact statement.

projects

Under section 401 of the CWA, restoration projects that involve discharge or fill to wetlands or

navigable waters must obtain certification of compliance with state water quality standards.

Generally, restoration projects with minor wetlands impacts (i-e., a project covered by a Corps

general permit) do not require 401 certification, while projects with potentially large or

cumulative impacts do.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 66 1451, et seq. 15 CPR Part 923

The goal of the CZMA is to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and enhance

the nation’s coastal resources. The federal government provides grants to states with federallyapproved coastal management programs. The State of Washington has a federally-approved

program. Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal action inside or outside of the

coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone shall be

consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of approved State

management programs. It states that no federal license or permit may be granted without giving

B-2
Draft of January 7,1999

the State the opportunity to concur that the project is consistent with the State’s coastal policies.

The regulations outline the consistency procedures.

To comply with the CZMA, the Trustees intend to seek the concurrence of the State of

Washington that their preferred projects are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with

the enforceable policies of the state coastal program.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilitv Act (CERCLA), 42

U.S.C. 46 9601, etseq.

CERCLA provides the basic legal framework for clean up and restoration of the nation’s

hazardous substances sites. Generally, parties responsible for contamination of sites and the

current owners or operators of contaminated sites are liable for the cost of clean up and

restoration. CERCLA establishes a hazard ranking system for assessing the nation’s contaminated

sites with the most contaminated sites being placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).

To the extent that restoration projects are proposed for areas containing hazardous substances, the

Trustees will avoid exacerbating any potential risk posed by such substances and will undertake

no actions which might constitute “arrangement for disposal of hazardous substances.” At this

time, the Trustees are not aware of any potential hazardous substance problem associated with the

areas where proposed restoration projects will occur.

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 56 1531, et seq.

The ESA directs all federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and their

habitats and encourages such agencies to utilize their authorities to further these purposes. Under

the Act, the Department of Commerce through NOAA and the Department of the Interior through

the USFWS publish lists of endangered and threatened species. Section 7 of the Act requires that

federal agencies consult with these departments to minimize the effects of federal actions on

endangered and threatened species. Prior to implementation of any project potentially affecting

an endangered or threatened species, the Trustees would conduct Section 7 consultations.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act @‘WCA), 16 U.S.C. !$ci 661, et seq.

The FWCA requires that federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the

National Marine Fisheries Service and State wildlife agencies for activities that affect, control or

modify waters of any stream or bodies of water, in order to minimize the adverse impacts of such

actions on fish and wildlife resources and habitat. This consultation is generally incorporated into

the process of complying with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, NEPA or other federal

permit, license or review requirements.

Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 56401, et seq.

The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates development and use of the nation’s navigable waterways.

Section 10 of the Act prohibits unauthorized obstruction or alteration of navigable waters and

vests the Corps with authority to regulate discharges of fill and other materials into such waters.

Restoration actions that require Section 404 Clean Water Act permits are likely also to require

permits under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. However, a single permit usually serves

B-3
Draft of January 7,1999

for both. Therefore, the Trustees can ensure compliance with the Rivers and Harbors Act through

the same mechanism.

Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This

Executive Order requires each federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate,

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,

policies and activities on minority and low income populations. EPA and the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) have emphasized the importance of incorporating environmental

justice review in the analyses conducted by federal agencies under NEPA and of developing

mitigation measures that avoid disproportionate environmental effects on minority and lowincome populations. The Trustees have concluded that there are no low income or ethnic

minority communities that would be adversely affected by the proposed restoration activities.

Executive Order 11988 - Construction in Flood plains

This 1977 Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and

short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of Flood plains and to

avoid direct or indirect support of development in Flood plains wherever there is a practicable

alternative. Each agency is responsible for evaluating the potential effects of any action it may

take in a flood plain.

Before taking an action, the federal agency must determine whether the proposed action will

occur in a flood plain. For major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment, the evaluation will be included in the agency’s NEPA compliance document(s).

The agency must consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in

Flood plains. If’the only practicable alternative requires siting in a flood plain, the agency must:

(1) design or modify the action to minimize potential harm; and, (2) prepare and circulate a

notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located in the flood plain.

Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), Ch. 70.105D RCW (1989) and Ch. 173-340 WAC

(1992)

MTCA, Washington’s toxic cleanup law, mandates that site cleanups protect the state’s citizens

and the environment. The regulations established cleanup standards, which provide a uniform,

statewide approach to cleanup that can be applied on a site-by-site basis; and requirements for

cleanup actions, which involve evaluating the best methodology to achieve cleanup standards at a

site.

State Environmental Policy Act [SEPAL Ch. 43 RCW

Adopted in 1971, and revised several times, SEPA requires state agencies and local governments

to analyze proposed projects and plans for potentially significant impacts to the environment.

Regulations implementing SEPA and providing guidance for state and local governments have

been adopted (CH. 197-11 WAC). Specific resource areas which must be considered under

SEPA include earth, air, water, vegetation, wildlife, public health, and shorelines. The SEPA

review process may be initiated at the local government level through the development

B-4
Draft of January 7,1999

application review procedures. Local regulations identifying and protecting critical or sensitive

environmental areas help ensure compliance with SEPA regulations. State agencies also prepare

documents in response to proposals for state agency action.

B.3 Other Potentially Applicable Laws and Regulations

This section lists other laws that potentially affect any proposed restoration activities. The

statutes or their implementing regulations may require permits from federal or state permitting

authorities.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U. SC. $5 470, et seq.

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. $5 7401, etseq.

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U. S.C. $5 136 1, et seq.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. $5 703, etseq.

National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U. S.C. 470, et seq.

National Park Act of August 19, 19 16 (Organic Act), 16 U. S.C. $5 1, et seq.

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 15 CFR Part 922

B-5